Troughton's administrator v. Johnston

Superior Court of North Carolina

Troughton's administrator v. Johnston

3 N.C. 328

DecidedOctober 15, 1804

StatusPublished

This text of 3 N.C. 328 (Troughton's administrator v. Johnston) 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

Troughton's administrator v. Johnston, 3 N.C. 328 (N.C. Ct. App. 1804).

Pincite

Opinion

TJALL, Judge.

-The n^gro sued for, belonged to Trough* von, and was pledged to jobaíáoo as security for a sum of money due from the ioi over to the biter : foilr years intervened, and the negro was exposed to public auction by direction of Ttoughton, and bid olf by Johnston, It is now said, the purchase by Johnston was a mere pretence, and by agreement b'j* tween him and Trough ton ; the real object having been to sell to Kirk, a buyer of negroes, by running him up to a high prive, and by bidding off for Trough ton, if Kbit would not bid as high as the siun contemplated. Such agree meet is fraudulent, and Troughton, a party to that fraud, cannot asksdge for the purpose of avoiding the sale. But if the jury think a new agreement was made afterwards, which re-vested the property in Trough» ton, then the sale has lost its effect.

See Smith vs. Brown, ante.

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

TJALL, Judge.

-The n^gro sued for, belonged to Trough* von, and was pledged to jobaíáoo as security for a sum of money due from the ioi over to the biter : foilr years intervened, and the negro was exposed to public auction by direction of Ttoughton, and bid olf by Johnston, It is now said, the purchase by Johnston was a mere pretence, and by agreement b'j* tween him and Trough ton ; the real object having been to sell to Kirk, a buyer of negroes, by running him up to a high prive, and by bidding off for Trough ton, if Kbit would not bid as high as the siun contemplated. Such agree meet is fraudulent, and Troughton, a party to that fraud, cannot asksdge for the purpose of avoiding the sale. But if the jury think a new agreement was made afterwards, which re-vested the property in Trough» ton, then the sale has lost its effect.

See Smith vs. Brown, ante.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.C. 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/troughtons-administrator-v-johnston-ncsuperct-1804.