White v. . White

35 N.C. 265
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 5, 1852·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Ruffin, C. J.

There cannot be a doubt of the law laid down to the jury. Assuming the deed of trust to have been fraudulent, yet, clearly, the fraudulent grantor and grantee, united, must be able to make a good title. For, the title must be in one of them, and unless it could be conveyed, we should have an instance of property perpetually inalienable. A stranger might, therefore, have purchased this property. So might the plaintiff, for a fair price and bona fide; which is admitted to be the .case here. For, the law does not deprive persons of the power of reference; but rather encourages them to abandon covinous conveyances, and make honest bargains instead of them. That was done here before the defendant got a judgment against ■Wall.

Per CuJBUJt. Judgment affirmed.

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

White v. . White, 35 N.C. 265 (N.C. 1852).

35 N.C. 265 (White v. . White) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Owen v. S. P. Richards Paper Co.
3 S.E.2d 660 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Triplett v. . Witherspoon
70 N.C. 589 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1874)