Rice v. . Richards

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Rice v. . Richards

45 N.C. 277

DecidedAugust 5, 1853

StatusPublished

This text of 45 N.C. 277 (Rice v. . Richards) 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

Rice v. . Richards, 45 N.C. 277 (N.C. 1853).

Pincite

Opinion

PeaesoN, J.

The entire legal ownership of the note survived to the defendant William Richards, and the personal representative of the deceased obligee had no right to receive any part of it. The plaintiff, therefore, made the payment in his own wrong.

*278 Whether the personal representative of the deceased obligee has a right in Equity to call upon the survivor for an account, it is not necessary now to decide, because the defendant fully meets and denies all supposed grounds of equity. The order dissolving the injunction is affirmed.

Per Curiam. Interlocutory order affirmed.

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

PeaesoN, J.

The entire legal ownership of the note survived to the defendant William Richards, and the personal representative of the deceased obligee had no right to receive any part of it. The plaintiff, therefore, made the payment in his own wrong.

*278 Whether the personal representative of the deceased obligee has a right in Equity to call upon the survivor for an account, it is not necessary now to decide, because the defendant fully meets and denies all supposed grounds of equity. The order dissolving the injunction is affirmed.

Per Curiam. Interlocutory order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 N.C. 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-richards-nc-1853.