Neely v. . Torian
Supreme Court of North Carolina
The bill of the plaintiff charged, that the plaintiff became indebted to the State Bank in the sum of eight hundred dollars, or thereabouts, and that Samuel Mitchell and James Currie were bound as his sureties therefor; that to indemnify his sureties the plaintiff conveyed in trust to one John B. M‘Mullin, two tracts of land, two negro slaves, his stock of horses, cattle and hogs, and all his other property : that a suit was brought by the bank against the plaintiff and his…
Read the full summary
The bill of the plaintiff charged, that the plaintiff became indebted to the State Bank in the sum of eight hundred dollars, or thereabouts, and that Samuel Mitchell and James Currie were bound as his sureties therefor; that to indemnify his sureties the plaintiff conveyed in trust to one John B. M‘Mullin, two tracts of land, two negro slaves, his stock of horses, cattle and hogs, and all his other property : that a suit was brought by the bank against the plaintiff and his sureties, and a judgment obtained therein at the January Term, 1832, of Caswell County Court: that execution issued upon…
1Opinion of the Court
Gaston, Judge.
The plaintiff founds his claim to relief, not on the ground of the specific execution of a contract respecting the sale of a tract of land, buton the ground that the defendant has taken an unconscientious advantage of the plaintiff, in getting his land at a price below its value, and below what if; would have commanded had not competition at the sale been prevented by the defendant’s unfair practices. We have diligehtly examined the proofs to ascertain whether they make out this claim to relief. If they do, the 'act of 1819 is certainly not in his way. How it might be, if the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- King v. Bynum.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Nash v. Elizabeth City Hospital Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1920