First & Citizens National Bank of Elizabeth City v. Hinton

Supreme Court of North Carolina

First & Citizens National Bank of Elizabeth City v. Hinton

195 S.E. 359, 213 N.C. 162, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 33

DecidedMarch 2, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 195 S.E. 359 (First & Citizens National Bank of Elizabeth City v. Hinton) 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

First & Citizens National Bank of Elizabeth City v. Hinton, 195 S.E. 359, 213 N.C. 162, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 33 (N.C. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Devin, J.

Tbe only question presented by tbis appeal is wbetber tbe affidavit was sufficient to warrant tbe order for tbe examination of tbe judgment debtor and tbe persons alleged to be indebted to bim.

It was set forth in tbe affidavit tbat tbe plaintiff bad recovered a judgment against tbe defendant and bad same duly docketed in tbe Superior Court of Pasquotank County; tbat execution thereon bad been issued; tbat tbe judgment and execution remained unpaid and unsatisfied, and tbat there was no known property or equitable interest in real property sufficient to satisfy tbe execution; tbat tbe defendant listed for taxation notes due by certain persons and other evidences of debt, of wbicb tbe defendant was still the owner, and tbat tbe defendant bad other cboses in action and things of value, not exempt from execution, wbicb be unjustly refused to apply toward tbe satisfaction of said judgment.

Tbe affidavit was in substantial compliance with tbe provisions of sec. 712 of tbe Consolidated Statutes, and constituted sufficient basis for tbe order of examination as entered by tbe judge of tbe Superior Court. Bank v. Burns, 109 N. C., 105, 13 S. E., 871; Boseman v. McGill, 184 N. C., 215, 114 S. E., 10; McIntosh Prac. and Proc., sec. 748.

Tbe order of tbe court below is in all respects

Affirmed.

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

Devin, J.

Tbe only question presented by tbis appeal is wbetber tbe affidavit was sufficient to warrant tbe order for tbe examination of tbe judgment debtor and tbe persons alleged to be indebted to bim.

It was set forth in tbe affidavit tbat tbe plaintiff bad recovered a judgment against tbe defendant and bad same duly docketed in tbe Superior Court of Pasquotank County; tbat execution thereon bad been issued; tbat tbe judgment and execution remained unpaid and unsatisfied, and tbat there was no known property or equitable interest in real property sufficient to satisfy tbe execution; tbat tbe defendant listed for taxation notes due by certain persons and other evidences of debt, of wbicb tbe defendant was still the owner, and tbat tbe defendant bad other cboses in action and things of value, not exempt from execution, wbicb be unjustly refused to apply toward tbe satisfaction of said judgment.

Tbe affidavit was in substantial compliance with tbe provisions of sec. 712 of tbe Consolidated Statutes, and constituted sufficient basis for tbe order of examination as entered by tbe judge of tbe Superior Court. Bank v. Burns, 109 N. C., 105, 13 S. E., 871; Boseman v. McGill, 184 N. C., 215, 114 S. E., 10; McIntosh Prac. and Proc., sec. 748.

Tbe order of tbe court below is in all respects

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 S.E. 359, 213 N.C. 162, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-citizens-national-bank-of-elizabeth-city-v-hinton-nc-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack