Anderson v. Doak

• Decision Date: 31 December 1849
• Citation: 10 Ired. 295,32 N.C. 295
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: ORVILLE ANDERSON v. JAMES W. DOAK.

10 Ired. 295

32 N.C. 295

ORVILLE ANDERSON

v.JAMES W. DOAK.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December Term, 1849.

Where a contract is made in another State, it is to be governed by the laws of that State, and not by those of North Carolina.

Where A. conveys property by a deed of trust for the payment of debts, and the debts are unsatisfied, the property is not subject to an attachment against A.

The cases of Davis v. Coleman, 7 Ire. 424, Parkerson v. Massey, 5 Ire. 192, Pool v. Glover, 3 Ire. 120, Coffield v. Collins, 4 Ire. 486, cited and approved.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Guilford County, at the Fall Term 1849, his Honor Judge SETTLE presiding.

This was an action of trover brought by the plaintiff to recover the value of a negro man, by the name of Harper.

The parties agreed upon the following statement of facts, and submitted them to the Court. Prior to the month of December 1841, one Stafford Weatherly lived in the County of Guilford in this State, and owned the slave in controversy, with other property. In the month of December 1841, the said Weatherly moved from this State to the County of Carroll in the State of Virginia, and took the slave Harper with him, having previously contracted debts in this State, which were unpaid at the time of his removal. The said Weatherly settled in Hillsville, in Carroll County, where he contracted several debts; and, in order to secure the debts he had contracted, he executed a deed of trust, bearing date the 19th day of July 1845, to the plaintiff in this action, in which he conveyed, among other property, the slave in controversy. The deed of trust had no subscribing witness to it, but was duly acknowledged on the day of its execution before the Clerk of Carroll County Court in Virginia, in his office, and duly recorded. Several of the bonds secured in the trust had not arrived at maturity at the time of executing the trust, under which it was provided, that the trustee should act when the bonds fell due, if not paid off. The slave Harper, remained with and in the possession of Weatherly?? until about the 1st of May 1846, when he committed some alleged offence and ranaway from Carroll County in Virginia, and returned to the County of Guilford in this State, where the defendant, who was then sheriff of the County of Guilford, seized the said slave and took him into possession, by virtue of an attachment issued in favor of Samuel McLintock against the said Stafford Weatherly, on the 1st day of May 1846, which attachment was founded on a debt contracted by said Weatherly previous to the month of December 1842, the time that the said Weatherly moved from the State. At the time the slave ranaway from Virginia, some of the debts secured under the trust had not fallen due. It is proven and admitted, that, by the laws of Virginia, a subscribing witness to a bill of sale or deed conveying slaves is...