Booth v. . Grant

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Booth v. . Grant

12 S.E. 378, 107 N.C. 405

DecidedSeptember 5, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 12 S.E. 378 (Booth v. . Grant) 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

Booth v. . Grant, 12 S.E. 378, 107 N.C. 405 (N.C. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Merrimon, C. J.:

This case is, in all material respects, like that of Booth v. Carstarphen, ante.

The time within which the trust could not be closed was twelve months, but we do not think this fact makes any material difference. It is clear, from the provisions of the deed and the facts admitted, that the purpose and effect— certainly in contemplation of law — were to hinder and delay the creditors not provided for in the deed, and to provide for the convenience and substantial advantage of the debtor, to their prejudice. There was no evidence to rebut the presumption of fraud in the deed of trust.

There is, therefore, error. The judgment must be reversed, and judgment entered for the plaintiff, declaring the deed in question void, and that he have possession of the land. To that end let this opinion be certified to the Superior Court.

Error.

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

Merrimon, C. J.:

This case is, in all material respects, like that of Booth v. Carstarphen, ante.

The time within which the trust could not be closed was twelve months, but we do not think this fact makes any material difference. It is clear, from the provisions of the deed and the facts admitted, that the purpose and effect— certainly in contemplation of law — were to hinder and delay the creditors not provided for in the deed, and to provide for the convenience and substantial advantage of the debtor, to their prejudice. There was no evidence to rebut the presumption of fraud in the deed of trust.

There is, therefore, error. The judgment must be reversed, and judgment entered for the plaintiff, declaring the deed in question void, and that he have possession of the land. To that end let this opinion be certified to the Superior Court.

Error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 S.E. 378, 107 N.C. 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/booth-v-grant-nc-1890.