Henly v. . Lanier

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Henly v. . Lanier

75 N.C. 172

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJune 5, 1876

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 75 N.C. 172 (Henly v. . Lanier) 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

Henly v. . Lanier, 75 N.C. 172 (N.C. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

Bynum, J.

After the defendant executed his promissory note to the plaintiff, he was adjudicated a bankrupt; and after the plaintiff had begun his action thereon, he also was adjudicated a bankrupt, and the note sued on was assigned to him, the plaintiff, as a part of his personal property exemption, pursuant to the fourteenth section of the Act.

The defendant pleaded his certificate of discharge in bar of the action; the plantiff replied a new promise made since the discharge.

Two questions are raised : First, Can the plaintiff maintain the action in his own name? Second, Must the new promise be in writing ?

1. The case states that the note sued on was a part of the plaintiff’s estate, when he became a bankrupt, and after the adjudication was assigned to him, under sec. 14 of the Act, as a part of his personal property exemption. That section excepts, from the operation of the Act, the exempted property, the title to which does'hot pass to the assignee, but remains in the bankrupt; so that as to that, his right of property, his possession and his right of action, remain as they were before the adjudication. The action, therefore, is well brought.

2. We know of no law of this State, and no provision of the Bankrupt Act, which requires the new promise to be in writing. Upon contracts entered into since the adoption of •the new Code, it is provided by statute, (see Bat. Rev., cb. *174 17, sec. 51,) that to take them out of the operation of the Statute of Limitations the new acknowledgment or promise must be in writing. But this applies to the Statute of Limitations only, and has no application to promises, which will take a case out of the operation of the Bankrupt Act. In Fraley v . Kelly, 67 N. C. Rep., 78, and Hernthall v. McRae, 57 N. C. Rep., 21, it was held to be sufficient to repel the bar of an adjudication in bankruptcy, to prove an unequivocal promise to pay the debt, made after the adjudication, without reference'to its being in writing. The jury in our case found that such a promise was made.

There is no error.

Pee Cukiam. Judgment affirmed.

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

Bynum, J.

After the defendant executed his promissory note to the plaintiff, he was adjudicated a bankrupt; and after the plaintiff had begun his action thereon, he also was adjudicated a bankrupt, and the note sued on was assigned to him, the plaintiff, as a part of his personal property exemption, pursuant to the fourteenth section of the Act.

The defendant pleaded his certificate of discharge in bar of the action; the plantiff replied a new promise made since the discharge.

Two questions are raised : First, Can the plaintiff maintain the action in his own name? Second, Must the new promise be in writing ?

1. The case states that the note sued on was a part of the plaintiff’s estate, when he became a bankrupt, and after the adjudication was assigned to him, under sec. 14 of the Act, as a part of his personal property exemption. That section excepts, from the operation of the Act, the exempted property, the title to which does'hot pass to the assignee, but remains in the bankrupt; so that as to that, his right of property, his possession and his right of action, remain as they were before the adjudication. The action, therefore, is well brought.

2. We know of no law of this State, and no provision of the Bankrupt Act, which requires the new promise to be in writing. Upon contracts entered into since the adoption of •the new Code, it is provided by statute, (see Bat. Rev., cb. *174 17, sec. 51,) that to take them out of the operation of the Statute of Limitations the new acknowledgment or promise must be in writing. But this applies to the Statute of Limitations only, and has no application to promises, which will take a case out of the operation of the Bankrupt Act. In Fraley v . Kelly, 67 N. C. Rep., 78, and Hernthall v. McRae, 57 N. C. Rep., 21, it was held to be sufficient to repel the bar of an adjudication in bankruptcy, to prove an unequivocal promise to pay the debt, made after the adjudication, without reference'to its being in writing. The jury in our case found that such a promise was made.

There is no error.

Pee Cukiam. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 N.C. 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henly-v-lanier-nc-1876.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack