Bray v. . Carter

20 S.E. 164, 115 N.C. 16
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 5, 1894·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Shepherd, C. J.:

This is an action in the nature of replevin to recover a crop of corn cultivated on the land of the feme defendant. The plaintiff claims under a chattel mortgage executed by her husband, but there is no evidence tending to show that she knew of or assented to the execution of the said mortgage, or that she bad leased her land to her husband, or had given him any proprietary use or interest in the same. The case is, therefore, clearly within the principles laid down in Wells v. Batts, 112 N. C., 283, and Branch v. Ward, 114 N. C., 148, and it was error in holding that the plaintiff was entitled to recover any part of the crop.

New trial.

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

Bray v. . Carter, 20 S.E. 164, 115 N.C. 16 (N.C. 1894).

20 S.E. 164 (Bray v. . Carter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Cranfield
76 S.E.2d 353 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
Hovsepian v. Eskender
231 P. 364 (California Court of Appeal, 1924)
Pocomoke Guano Co. v. Colwell
98 S.E. 535 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1919)
J. L. Thompson Co. v. Coats
93 S.E. 724 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)