Peace v. . Nailing
Supreme Court of North Carolina
r, ... From Dr&imlJe. The bill alleged, that administration upon the estate of one Frances Chaves, was roiimsiUed to the Defendant Smith, who gave the Defendant Nailing and one Pope, as sureties for t he due administration thereof-dhat the estate was sold Sty the administrator on the 24th of Feb.
Read the full summary
r, ... From Dr&imlJe. The bill alleged, that administration upon the estate of one Frances Chaves, was roiimsiUed to the Defendant Smith, who gave the Defendant Nailing and one Pope, as sureties for t he due administration thereof-dhat the estate was sold Sty the administrator on the 24th of Feb. A. U, 1785 — tisAt two negroes were then purchased by one Jo/m Dickinson, for .5132 10s, who gave bond to the administrator for the purchase-money, which bore date the 24th of February, A. D. 1785, and was payable six months there* after. That the bond of Dickinson was delivered on the next day lay…
1Opinion
I suppose it was competent for Peace to pray a discovery from Nailing, whether he had any interest in the obligation on which suit was brought. But that mode of defense having been resorted to, and turning out fruitless, the bill ought to have been dismissed, and (297) not held over as an original, as was too often permitted to be done by courts of equity at the time this was filed.
By holding the bill over and taking testimony, it was intended to examine a second time the same subject, which had been examined and disposed of in the court of law — to have a new trial — when the plaintiff had…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Porter v. . RossSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1855
- Radcliff v. Bartholomew, Alpress & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1845