Den on Demise of Williamson v. James

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Den on Demise of Williamson v. James

32 N.C. 162

DecidedAugust 5, 1849

StatusPublished

This text of 32 N.C. 162 (Den on Demise of Williamson v. James) 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

Den on Demise of Williamson v. James, 32 N.C. 162 (N.C. 1849).

Pincite

Opinion

Pearson, J.

The plaintiff was not entitled to recover, although wc do not concur in the reasoning of the Judge, nor in the view he took of the case. Whether the endorsement on the deed of trust had the effect of extinguishing the trust debt, or of assigning it to the defendant, we think immaterial. It is certain, the legal title did not pass, but remained in E. Hetrick, the trustee. It is also certain that the trust estate of Lockenore did pass by his deed to the defendant on the 22nd of October, which was on Wednesday of the term, when the judgment, under which the lessor claims, was entered. The execution issued after the expiration of the term, and, at the time it issued, Lockenore had no trust estate, having passed it to the defendant by the deed of the 22d of October ; so that the lessees took nothing by the sheriff’s sale. An execution does not bind trust estates from the teste, but from the time it is sued. Hall v. Harris, 3 Ire. Eq. 289. This does not seem to have occurred to the learned Judge or the counsel. It decides the case.

Per Curiam

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pearson, J.

The plaintiff was not entitled to recover, although wc do not concur in the reasoning of the Judge, nor in the view he took of the case. Whether the endorsement on the deed of trust had the effect of extinguishing the trust debt, or of assigning it to the defendant, we think immaterial. It is certain, the legal title did not pass, but remained in E. Hetrick, the trustee. It is also certain that the trust estate of Lockenore did pass by his deed to the defendant on the 22nd of October, which was on Wednesday of the term, when the judgment, under which the lessor claims, was entered. The execution issued after the expiration of the term, and, at the time it issued, Lockenore had no trust estate, having passed it to the defendant by the deed of the 22d of October ; so that the lessees took nothing by the sheriff’s sale. An execution does not bind trust estates from the teste, but from the time it is sued. Hall v. Harris, 3 Ire. Eq. 289. This does not seem to have occurred to the learned Judge or the counsel. It decides the case.

Per Curiam

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 N.C. 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/den-on-demise-of-williamson-v-james-nc-1849.