Jones, Lee & Co. v. Britton
Supreme Court of North Carolina
MotioN, to vacate an injunction in a civil action, heard before Graves, J., at Spring Term, 1888, of the Superior Court .of NoRti-iamptoN County.
Read the full summary
MotioN, to vacate an injunction in a civil action, heard before Graves, J., at Spring Term, 1888, of the Superior Court .of NoRti-iamptoN County. The plaintiff Jones had docketed his judgment against the defendant Britton for $50, with interest from the 29th of January, 1887, and for costs; and at the time the same was so docketed the said defendant was a citizen of this State and entitled to the right of homestead, and was seized and possessed of the land specified in the complaint. He had no personal property subject to levy, and the land mentioned was all he had, was of value not exceeding…
1ConcurrenceShepherd, J.
If any question is well settled in this State, it is, that all of the lands of a debtor, the homestead inclusive, are subject to the lien of a docketed judgment. Ch. 358, Acts 1885; Rankin v. Shaw, 94 N. C., 405. It is unnecessary that there should be a levy. Miller v. Miller, 89 N. C. 402; Mebane v. Layton, ibid., 396.
Whatever may be said as to the effect of the general lien of a docketed judgment in other States, our decisions place it on the same footing, so far as its binding effect upon the *178land is concerned, as if a levy had been actually made. Sawyers v. Sawyers, 93 N. C., 321; Lytle…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Citizens' National Bank v. GreenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
- Markham v. W. H. Hicks & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
- Wilson v. . PattonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
- Lytle v. . LytleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
- Miller v. . MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.