Carter v. Cocke
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Actiok for the possession of land, tried before Hmry, J.,. at Spring Term 1870 of Buncombe Court. The plaintiff was assignee in bankruptcy of Eobert H. Chapman, who had been adjudicated a bankrupt in December 1868; and the defendant was trustee for the purpose of paying certain debts of said Chapman, under a deed of conveyance from him, dated February 8th 1867. The lands in question were included in the deed, and the plaintiff claimed that, as against, creditors, this deed…
Read the full summary
Actiok for the possession of land, tried before Hmry, J.,. at Spring Term 1870 of Buncombe Court. The plaintiff was assignee in bankruptcy of Eobert H. Chapman, who had been adjudicated a bankrupt in December 1868; and the defendant was trustee for the purpose of paying certain debts of said Chapman, under a deed of conveyance from him, dated February 8th 1867. The lands in question were included in the deed, and the plaintiff claimed that, as against, creditors, this deed was fraudulent upon its face, and void. • The features in the deed.which were impeached by the plaintiff as fraudulent,…
1Opinion of the CourtRodman, J.
We assume, in this case, that the plaintiff is entitled to represent the creditors of Chapman, and to recover possession of the lands, if the deed from Chapman to the defendant is fraudulent and void as to the creditors of Chapman.. We will examine the objections to the deed, in order:
1. It is said to be void because the grantor attempts to secure an unlawful benefit to his wife.
It is conceded that every conveyance by an insolvent, for the benefit of his family, to the detriment of his creditors,. is fraudulent and void; and therefore, that the provision in this deed in trust, that his wife…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Morris v. . PearsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878