Iredell v. . Langston
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Fpom Chowan. The Plaintiffs alleged that their testator was the exe-outor of Stephen Cabarrus — that John Charrier was a legatee of the said Cabarrus, and made large purchases at ** sale of his effects, to secure which, he executed two Swíifh to íb-lv testator for gg,OüO ere:» — -sí!-.' Gabarras, |i>y hss ■w¡!5, also gave legacies lo John P, hulJúsUm Charrier, children <»f John Chmvier — MiM '.'«•Ir Icotatcr, in his Siibiii.re. procured a decree of forccln'-eco upon a Huh…
Read the full summary
Fpom Chowan. The Plaintiffs alleged that their testator was the exe-outor of Stephen Cabarrus — that John Charrier was a legatee of the said Cabarrus, and made large purchases at ** sale of his effects, to secure which, he executed two Swíifh to íb-lv testator for gg,OüO ere:» — -sí!-.' Gabarras, |i>y hss ■w¡!5, also gave legacies lo John P, hulJúsUm Charrier, children <»f John Chmvier — MiM '.'«•Ir Icotatcr, in his Siibiii.re. procured a decree of forccln'-eco upon a Huh .given by John Charrier. tí» sfcono Ust payment; of rlr* tn-v hoods of S -2.000. and a rale oí :'ii mortgaged proini-.i*v.…
1Opinion of the Court
Henderson, Chief-Justice,
after stating the proceeded as follows;.
It •appears 'o us that the Plaintiffs have a very plain equity, it i;> nothing more than subjecting the funds of an insolvent csslni que trust, in the hands of his trustee, to the payment of ids debts. Nor does the case of Bishop v. Church, relie'1 on in the argument for the Defendant,touch the qrociion. There the assignees of the bankrupt did not hold Che estate in trust for the bankrupt, hut for his crediiors, of whom the Plaintiff was owe. It was not preterid.!, that, whatever money he wan entitled to receive, as his dividend…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Eborn v. . WaldoSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1860
- Holding v. . HoldingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1804