Fortescue v. . Spencer
Supreme Court of North Carolina
These were appeals from the judgments of the Superior Court of Hyde County at Fall Term, 1341, his Honor Judge Settle presiding. The facts were these: The defendant _was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $148 42 due by, bond, and on the 26th of May, 1840, in satisfaction of that ^on^> §a'e’e to ^ plaintiff two other bonds in the sum of $74 21 each, payable immediately.
Read the full summary
These were appeals from the judgments of the Superior Court of Hyde County at Fall Term, 1341, his Honor Judge Settle presiding. The facts were these: The defendant _was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $148 42 due by, bond, and on the 26th of May, 1840, in satisfaction of that ^on^> §a'e’e to ^ plaintiff two other bonds in the sum of $74 21 each, payable immediately. These two bonds were given and accepted by the parties, respectively, with the view that judgments might be taken thereon before a justice of the peace; and, accordingly, on the same day the defendant accepted the service…
1Opinion of the CourtRuffin, C. J.
There canhot be the fedst question that the ruling of his Honor is right. There is no foundation at all for saying, that the parties acted in fraud of the law. Were a creditor, whose debt exceeded the sum of which a magistrate had jurisdiction, to remit a part of it by acknowledging a fictitious payment, for the purpose of taking advantage of his debtor, and obtaining a speedier judgment, there might be ground for this objection, if made in apt time. But what was done here was the act of the parties, and consisted of nothing more than the giving of new securities for a just_'_ debt. Whether…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Boyle v. . RobbinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874
- Marker v. QuinlanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1925