Brown v. Graves.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Caswell. This was an action of trover to recover the value of two oxen. The writ issued October 23, 1823, and the following appeared to be the case.
Read the full summary
From Caswell. This was an action of trover to recover the value of two oxen. The writ issued October 23, 1823, and the following appeared to be the case. The Plaintiff claimed title to the property under a deed of trust executed by Zachariah Groom to William Russel, for the use of Philip Pierce (who was Groom9s security) dated 22d of November, 1821, and by the trustee, he proved on the trial, that on the 11th of Februai*y, 1822, a sale was made under the trust deed, at the house of Groom; that the land mentioned in the deed sold for §>280, the mare for S32, the oxen (now in controversy) for…
1Opinion of the Court
Hekbersok, Judge. —
This transaction, upon its face, bears evident marks of a fraudulent contrivance between Graves, Bussell Groom, to give to Brotan a fraudulent preference in the payment of the debt which Graves owed to him, or to cause Graves’s property to rest in him in fraud of creditors. If the object had been to give Brown a preference, and that object bad been fairly, and with good faith effected, the law would not'have annulled it. The fraudulent design is evidenced throughout the whole transaction; the expediting the sale at the instance of Graves, and more especially by prohibiting…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Patrick v. . BeattySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Thompson v. . FordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1847
- McIlwinn v. . CarrawaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1817