Davenport v. Leary
Decision Date | 31 October 1886 |
Citation | 95 N.C. 203 |
Parties | DAVENPORT & MORRIS v. W. J. LEARY, JR., Admr., et als. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
CIVIL ACTION, heard upon a case agreed, by Gudger, Judge, at Spring Term, 1886, of PERQUIMANS Superior Court.
The facts are as follows:
1. F. W. Bond died intestate in September, 1885, and administration was granted upon his estate, by the proper Court, to Wm. J. Leary, Jr., who is now acting as such. His estate is hopelessly insolvent. During the whole of the year 1884, said Bond was a resident of Chowan county.
2. At the date of the judgments named herein, and up to his death, Bond owned an interest in real estate in Perquimans county, which has been, since his death, duly sold, and the proceeds of sale after paying all prior liens, is under the control of Wm. J. Leary, Jr., administrator, for such of the judgment creditors herein named as the Court may adjudge entitled thereto.
3. Davenport & Morris claim by virtue of certain judgments obtained by them before a justice of the peace, aggregating four hundred dollars, and interest, and which were duly docketed in Perquimans county, August 20th, 1884.
4. Chas. Watkins & Co. claim by virtue of a judgment confessed by said Bond, in Chowan Superior Court, August 18th, 1884, in their favor, for three hundred and ten dollars and three cents, a transcript of which was docketed in Perquimans county, August 19th, 1884; copies of the affidavit on which this judgment was based, and the account filed with the same, are set out below.
5. Rawlins, Whitehurst & Co. claim the fund by virtue of a judgment confessed by Bond, in their favor, August 18th, 1884, for seven hundred and ninety-eight dollars and eighty-eight cents, in Chowan Superior Court, a transcript of which was docketed in Perquimans county, August 19th, 1884; copies of the affidavit on which this judgment was based, the note and statement of account, are also set out below.
6. The affidavit, statement of account, original note, and judgment of the Clerk in case of Rawlins, Whitehurst & Co., were folded together on August 18th, 1884, by the Clerk, and endorsed on the back of the package, after giving the name of the cause, “Judgment confessed before Clerk,” and the affidavit and statement of judgment in case of Watkins & Co. were also folded and endorsed in same way on the back, and on the same day.
Across the face of the above statement was written August 18th, 1884, “““Judgment confessed, August 18th, 1884.
WM. R. SKINNER, Clerk.”
The affidavit on which the judgment of Rawlins, Whitehurst & Co. was confessed, was as follows:
The note and account were as follows in the judgment of Rawlins, Whitehurst & Co.:
NORFOLK, VA., July 5, 1883.
$390.10.
Sixty days after date, I promise to pay to the order of Rawlins, Whitehurst & Co., three hundred and ninety dollars and ten cents, at the Home Savings Bank of Norfolk, Va., without defalcation, for value received; and we, maker and endorser, do hereby waive the benefit of our homestead exemption as to this debt.
+------------------------------------+ ¦(Signed).¦F. W. BOND, Edenton, N. C.¦ +------------------------------------+
No. 26,047, due September 6.
Mr. F. W. BOND,
Bought of Rawlins, Whitehurst & Co.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Farmers' Bank of Clayton v. McCullers
...for perjury if the statement of it be false, or support a plea of res judicata should a subsequent action be instituted thereon. Davenport v. Leary, 95 N.C. 203. The statement should also give assurance that consideration underlying the judgment is fair and honest. Sharp v. R. R., supra. A ......
-
Farmers' Bank Of Clayton v. Mccul-lers
...for perjury if the statement of it be false, or support a plea of res judicata should a subsequent action be instituted thereon. Davenport v. Leary, 95 N. C. 203. The statement should also give assurance that the consideration underlying the judgment is fair and honest. Sharp v. R. R., supr......
-
Wallace v. Salisbury
...the judgment which is rendered upon the record proper is the only error assignable or possible. Chamblee v. Baker, 95 N. C. 98; Davenport v. Leary, 95 N. C. 203; Greensboro v. McAdoo, 112 N. C. 360, 17 S. E. 178; Clark v. Peebles, 120 N. C. 32, 26 S. E. 924; Railroad v. Stewart, 132 N. C. 2......
-
Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Newton Cotton Mills
...and considerations out of which the indebtedness arose. What constitutes such a concise statement has been considered in Davenport v. Leary, 95 N.C. 203; Nimocks Shingle Co., 110 N.C. 20, 14 S.E. 622; and in Uzzle v. Vinson, supra. In Nirmocks' Case it was said: "Ordinarily, a corporation s......