Arrington v. . Screws

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Arrington v. . Screws

31 N.C. 42

DecidedDecember 5, 1848

StatusPublished

This text of 31 N.C. 42 (Arrington v. . Screws) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arrington v. . Screws, 31 N.C. 42 (N.C. 1848).

Pincite

Opinion

Ruffin, C. J.

The Court concurs in the opinion of his Honor. An attachment may be served in the hands of any person indebted to the defendant or having any of his effects. But this interest of Mrs. Screws in the hands of her sister’s administrator, is not a debt to the defendant, her husband, but belongs to him and her in her right. It cannot become his, but by reducing it into possession. Regarding this interest as a debt, there is, then, an inconsistency in attaching it as a debt to the husband ; since, which outstanding, it cannot legally be his. He might, indeed, release the demand, or assign it in Equity; but unless he collects the money or disposes of the interest, the right of the wife continues and would survive to her or her representative. He could not recover it in his own name; and it follows, that it cannot be attached as a debt to him. Process operates only upon such interests of the debtor as exist at the time it is served, and not on such as may afterwards arise. Gentry v. Wagstaff, 3 Dev. 270. Flynn v. Williams, 1 Ired. 509.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ruffin, C. J.

The Court concurs in the opinion of his Honor. An attachment may be served in the hands of any person indebted to the defendant or having any of his effects. But this interest of Mrs. Screws in the hands of her sister’s administrator, is not a debt to the defendant, her husband, but belongs to him and her in her right. It cannot become his, but by reducing it into possession. Regarding this interest as a debt, there is, then, an inconsistency in attaching it as a debt to the husband ; since, which outstanding, it cannot legally be his. He might, indeed, release the demand, or assign it in Equity; but unless he collects the money or disposes of the interest, the right of the wife continues and would survive to her or her representative. He could not recover it in his own name; and it follows, that it cannot be attached as a debt to him. Process operates only upon such interests of the debtor as exist at the time it is served, and not on such as may afterwards arise. Gentry v. Wagstaff, 3 Dev. 270. Flynn v. Williams, 1 Ired. 509.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 N.C. 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arrington-v-screws-nc-1848.