Coe-Mortimer Co. v. Briggs
Opinion
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
This was an action to set aside two deeds for fraud. The defendant demurred to the complaint on four grounds: (1) That there was no allegation that the deeds were executed after the debts were contracted. (2) There is no allegation of a nulla bona return. (3) There is no allegation of *88 want of consideration. (4) That plaintiff is estopped to deny that-R. H. Briggs is the sole debtor by its judgment against R. H. Briggs alone.
The demurrer was sustained on the second ground, but refused on the other grounds, and an amendment ordered. From this order the defendants appealed.
There are two exceptions, as follows: (1) That the presiding Judge erred in overruling defendants’ first, third and fourth grounds of demurrer. (2) That the presiding Judge erred in not dismissing the complaint.
4. The appellant admits in argument that his second exception depends on the first and falls with it.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
89 S.E. 553 (Coe-Mortimer Co. v. Briggs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.