Griffin v. Richardson

• Decision Date: 31 December 1850
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: WILLIAM W. GRIFFIN v. DANIEL RICHARDSON

11 Ired. 439

33 N.C. 439

WILLIAM W. GRIFFIN

v.DANIEL RICHARDSON

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December Term, 1850.

A., by a bona fide deed proved and registered in May 1843, conveyed a slave to B?? in trust to secure the payment of certain debts. B. by deed, conveyed the slave to C. for a certain price, all of which was afterwards paid by A?? except $100, C. then by deed dated in 1847, and proved in 1849, in consideration of the said $100 conveyed the slave to D. Held, that, though D. might have taken that conveyance in trust for A. upon the payment of the $100, yet while the property remained in that situation, the $100 not being paid, A. had no such interest as was liable to an execution against him.

Estoppels must be mutual, and bind only parties and privies. One, who is not bound by an estoppel, cannot take advantage of it.

The case of Gowing v?? Rich, 1 Ire. 553, cited and approved.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Pasquotank County, at a Special Term in December 1850, his Honor Judge BATTLE presiding.

This was an action of detinue for a negro slave named Mary. Plea, non detinet. Upon the trial, both parties claimed under Stephen D. Pool, to whom the slave in question formerly belonged. The plaintiff exhibited a deed in trust from the said Pool to William L. Shannonhouse, dated, proved and recorded in 1843, the trust being for the payment of certain debts therein named.--Shannonhouse, the trustee, sold the slave at public auction, to Samuel J. Proctor for $625, and conveyed her by bill of sale for that consideration. Proctor, afterwards, conveyed the slave to the plaintiff, by deed dated in November 1847, and recorded in March 1849. In this deed the consideration is stated to be five hundred dollars, and it is recited that the property had been conveyed by the said Proctor to J. C. B. Ehringhaus in trust, by a deed bearing date in December 1843, and duly registered. The plaintiff further proved a demand and refusal.

The defendant then produced the record of a judgment against the said Pool, rendered by the County Court of Pasquotank, at December Term 1848, on a note bearing date in August 1848. He then shewed an execution, issued on the said judgment, proved a sale made under it by the sheriff on the 17th of February 1849, and produced the sheriff's deed to himself. He then called as a witness Samuel J. Proctor, who testified, that the slave, Mary, remained in the possession of Pool, from the time of his execution of the deed in trust to Shannonhouse, until she was sold by Shannonhouse; that he, the witness, purchased her for the benefit of the said Pool, intending, however, to retain the title until her purchase money should be repaid; that payments were made by some person, (it was alleged to be by Pool,) until the sum was reduced to one hundred dollars, with a small amount of interest accrued thereon. He testified further, that, when he was about to sell the slave to the plaintiff, he and Pool were at the plaintiff's office, and Pool said to him in the plaintiff's presence, that he, the plaintiff, had befriended him before, and that he was willing to do it again, and that the plaintiff would pay him one hundred dollars for the said slave, and keep the title as collateral security, until Pool should be able to repay him; and that he, the witness, received the one hundred dollars from the plaintiff and executed the bill of sale above referred to. This witness testified further, that the debts, mentioned in the deed in trust from Pool to Shannonhouse, were fair and bona fide. It was also in...