Bond v. . Bond
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was a rule upon the defendant to show cause why an attachment as for contempt should not issue against him, heard by Watts, J., at Chowan Superior Court, Spring Term, 1873. The cause was heard upon affidavits of plaintiff’s counsel and the defendant’s answer, and by his Honor it was ordered that the rule be discharged upon defendant paying the costs. From this judgment the defendant prayed an appeal. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the CourtReade, J.
In November, 1870, in a suit of Norfleet v. John Bond, a receiver was appointed to talce charge of certain effects of John Bond, which was alleged to be in the hands of others, among which effects was a bond in the hands of defendant, Alex. H. Bond. And said Alex. H. Bond had notice of the appointment of the receiver, and was forbidden to interfere in any way with the effects. Instead of delivering over the bond to the reciever, he put it into the hands of an attorney, who at Spring Term, 1871, brought suit on it and obtained judgment at Fall Term, 1871, and sued out execution. An order was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In the Matter of B. F. Moore, and OthersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1869
3Cited by6 opinions
- In Re WalkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1880
- State v. HenthornSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
- In Re DavesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1879
- Bristol v. . PearsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
- Kron v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.