Hafner v. . Irwin
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Mecklenburg county, at Spring Term, 1844, his Honor Judge Battle presiding. This was the same case, which was before the Supreme Court at its June Term, 1841, and reported in the first vol. of Iredell’s Reports, page 490. The evidence given upon this second trial was substantially the same as that stated in the printed report referred to, except that the witness Cross was not examined on the latter trial, and it did not then appear,…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Mecklenburg county, at Spring Term, 1844, his Honor Judge Battle presiding. This was the same case, which was before the Supreme Court at its June Term, 1841, and reported in the first vol. of Iredell’s Reports, page 490. The evidence given upon this second trial was substantially the same as that stated in the printed report referred to, except that the witness Cross was not examined on the latter trial, and it did not then appear, that five of the warrants, upon which the defendants’ judgments and executions were obtained, had been signed in blank.…
1Opinion of the Court
Ruffin, C. X
On the questions affecting the validity of the deed to the plaintiff) the directions to the jury conform substantially and almost literally to the opinion given by this Court on thorn, when the case was here before. Hafner v Irwin, 1 Ired. 490. They are of course, now approved by us.
Upon the other points stated in the case, our opinions also concur with those of his Honob.
A creditor must establish his debt by judgment before he can raise the question of the validity of a conveyance made by his debtor. As a general -creditor by contract, he has no right to the property, nor lien…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Moore v. . RaglandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1876
- Barber v. . BuffaloeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
- Barber v. . BuffaloeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898