Lloyd v. Durham
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an action of, trover, tried before Heath, Judge, at Pali Term of Orange Superior Court, 1863. The plaintiff proved that in' 185$ he was the owner .of a grey mare which was laid-off to him as a housekeeper by freeholders acting under the provisions of the Revised Code, ck. 45, secs. 8 and-9, and that a list of the; property so laid off, including the mare valued therein at $35.15, was made out and returned to the Clerk of the County Court, andthat within a fe.w weeks…
Read the full summary
This was an action of, trover, tried before Heath, Judge, at Pali Term of Orange Superior Court, 1863. The plaintiff proved that in' 185$ he was the owner .of a grey mare which was laid-off to him as a housekeeper by freeholders acting under the provisions of the Revised Code, ck. 45, secs. 8 and-9, and that a list of the; property so laid off, including the mare valued therein at $35.15, was made out and returned to the Clerk of the County Court, andthat within a fe.w weeks thereafter he exchanged the grey mare for a sorrel mare, being the one con.cerning which this suit was brought. - ' The…
1Opinion of the CourtPeaRson, C. J.
The plaintiff had a right to exchange the grey mare, and the effect of the exchange was to vest *289in Mm the title to the sorrel mare; so sh« was his property ; but the question is was she protected from execution.
The plaintiff insists that as the grey mare was exempted the privilege passed to the sorrel mare by the legal effect of the exchange ; but the' defendant insists that the privilege was personal to the grey, and did not attach to the sorrel.
The statute makes void any alienation of exempted property by the debtor' for the payment of his debts. He can ' sell or exchange it, but there is…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Woodruff v. . BowlesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- In re HamrickDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · 1932