Crouch v. Crouch
| Decision Date | 27 November 1912 |
| Parties | CROUCH. v. CROUCH et al |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
1. Homestead (§ 52*)—Allotment — Description.
In an allotment of homestead, a description of land as "first tract, valued at $36, known as the Fisher land, " is sufficient.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Home stead, Cent. Dig. §§ 70-72; Dec. Dig. § 52.*)
2. Homestead (§ 52*)—Allotment—Filing of Return.
Where a judgment obtained in A. county was docketed in C. county, a return of the appraiser's allotment of homestead to C. county was sufficient, although the judgment roll was in A. county.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Homestead, Cent. Dig. §§ 70-72; Dec. Dig. § 52.*)
3. Homestead (§ 52*)—Registration—Necessity.
Registration of an allotted homestead is not necessary unless the exemption is made on the petition of the homesteader.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Homestead, Cent. Dig. §§ 70-72; Dec. Dig. § 52.*] Vendor and Purchaser (§ 2312-*)—Docketing Judgment—Effect as Notice. A docketed judgment is notice to a purchaser from the judgment debtor that all his land is subject to the lien of the judgment.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Vendor and Purchaser, Cent. Dig. §§ 513-539; Dec Dig. § 231.*]
5. Homestead (§ 155*)—Execution—Enforcement after Transfer and Termination of Estate.
Under Acts 1905, c. 111, now Revisal 1905, § 686, which provides that a homestead ceases on the homesteader's conveyance, a homestead allotted to a judgment debtor in 1899, and by him conveyed, subject to the judgment, later in the same year, did not become subject to execution until 1905; the statute expressly providing that it should not be retroactive.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Homestead, Cent. Dig. § 308; Dec. Dig. § 155.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Caldwell County; Adams, Judge.
Action by H. M. Crouch against T. P. Crouch, administrator of the estate of La-ban E. Hoke, deceased, and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Edmund Jones, M. N. Harshaw, and J. W. Whisnant, all of Lenoir, for appellant.
W. C. Newland and Mark Squires, both of Lenoir, for appellees.
The plaintiff obtained judgment against Laban E. Hoke, the intestate of defendant, in Alexander county July 3, 1888, which was docketed in Caldwell November 16, 1888. Execution issued March 22, 1889, from Alexander county to the sheriff of Caldwell, who summoned three appraisers on April 25, 1889, whose allotment to said Hoke of his homestead included a tract which is described in their return as "first tract, valued at $36, known as the Fisher land." This is the tract which the plaintiff is seeking to subject to satisfaction of his judgment. The appraisers' report was returned to the clerk of Caldwell superior court, in whose office it was found August 16, 1909, in a metallic filing case labeled "Homesteads." The sheriff sold all the lands of said Hoke not embraced in the appraisers' return on August 5, 1889; the plaintiff being the purchaser thereof. On September 21, 1889, said Hoke executed a deed to the defendant Felix Abernathey for the "Fisher land, " which had been allotted to him as a part of his homestead. Hoke died July 16, 1909. leaving him surviving his widow and two children, both of whom are of age. This action was begun October 4, 1910, to subject the "Fisher tract" to payment of plaintiff's judgment, and plaintiff asked that the court decree the deed from Hoke to Abernathey void as against the lien of the plaintiff's docketed judgment; that Abernathey be directed as trustee to convey to the purchaser at execution sale; and that defendant administrator be authorized to sell the land and apply the proceeds to the satisfaction of the plaintiff's judgment. The court held that Abernathey had no actual notice of the allotment of the land in question as a part of Hoke's homestead exemption, and that the constructive notice is insufficient because the description was not definite and the return of the appraisers was not filed in the judgment roll of the action, citing Bevan v. Ellis, 121 N. C. 225, 28 S. E. 471.
We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stokes v. Smith
...v. Layton, supra; Markham v. Hicks, 90 N.C. 204; Vanstory v. Thornton, 112 N.C. 196, 17 S.E. 566; Fulp v. Brown, supra; Crouch v. Crouch, 160 N.C. 447, 76 S.E. 482; Brown v. Harding, 171 N.C. 686, 89 S.E. 222; Cheek v. Walden, 195 N.C. 752, 143 S.E. 465; Miller v. Little, 212 N.C. 612, 194 ......
-
Williams v. Johnson
...an irregularity insufficient in force and effect to invalidate the allotment. Bevan v. Ellis, 121 N.C. 224, 28 S.E. 471; Crouch v. Crouch, 160 N.C. 447, 76 S.E. 482; Carstarphen v. Carstarphen, 193 N.C. 541, 137 S.E. 658. The object of the notice by registration in the office of the registe......
-
Williams v. Johnson
...an irregularity insufficient in force and effect to invalidate the allotment. Bevan v. Ellis, 121 N.C. 224, 28 S.E. 471; Crouch v. Crouch, 160 N.C. 447, 76 S.E. 482; Carstarphen v. Carstarphen, 193 N.C. 541, 137 658. The object of the notice by registration in the office of the register of ......
-
Brown v. Harding
...effect, and the determinative facts all transpired before the section was enacted. Chapter 3, § 3, Laws 1905." And in Crouch v. Crouch, 160 N. C. 447, 76 S. E. 482, the court, by the Chief Justice, said: "It is true that under the Act of 1905, c. 111, now Revisal, 686, the homestead exempti......