McKinsie v. . Smith

Superior Court of North Carolina

McKinsie v. . Smith

3 N.C. 372

DecidedJuly 5, 1805

StatusPublished

This text of 3 N.C. 372 (McKinsie v. . Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior 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

McKinsie v. . Smith, 3 N.C. 372 (N.C. Ct. App. 1805).

Pincite

Opinion

however, was of a contrary opinion, and said he ought not to be charged with interest, for that he was not bound to refund exceeding the value he had received; and independent of that, an executor delivering over the property was liable to creditors for the value, and no more.

NOTE. — Hostler v. Smith, ante, 305, defendant pleaded that the property was delivered over in 1786, to McKinsie and others; and LOCKE, J., decided that such delivery over did not amount to an administration; and the more so as Smith had notice of Hostler's debt.

NOTE. — See McKinsie v. Smith, 6 N.C. 92.

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

however, was of a contrary opinion, and said he ought not to be charged with interest, for that he was not bound to refund exceeding the value he had received; and independent of that, an executor delivering over the property was liable to creditors for the value, and no more.

NOTE. — Hostler v. Smith, ante, 305, defendant pleaded that the property was delivered over in 1786, to McKinsie and others; and LOCKE, J., decided that such delivery over did not amount to an administration; and the more so as Smith had notice of Hostler's debt.

NOTE. — See McKinsie v. Smith, 6 N.C. 92.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.C. 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckinsie-v-smith-ncsuperct-1805.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack