Holmesly v. Hogue

Citation2 Jones 391,47 N.C. 391
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decision Date31 August 1855


*1 In a question of a fraudulent conveyance of a slave the plaintiff may go into the particulars of a trade for land, and a modification of that trade afterwards, in order to show that he was a creditor.

It is not competent for a creditor, in order to establish the fraud in question, to show that the debtor had made a fraudulent transfer of other property to another person.

ACTION of TROVER to recover the value of a slave, tried before his Honor, Judge SAUNDERS, at the last Spring Term of Cleaveland Superior Court.

Guion and Lander, for plaintiff .

Baxter and Hoke, for defendant .


We are not sure that we have been able rightly to understand the case sent us in this record, or the intended bearing of the testimony excepted to. This obscurity may be the effect of haste in drawing up the exceptions, (which should ever present the point in contest with clearness and brevity,) or of imperfect chirography, rendering it sometimes impossible to read or transcribe it. To whatever cause it may be owing, we have had much difficulty in satisfying ourselves that we have arrived at a just conclusion in endeavoring to read the case.

The action is in case for the recovery of a negro woman Esther. The plaintiff purchased the negro from one Joseph Hardin: his bill of sale is dated on 12th of July, 1853, and the defendant caused an execution to be levied on her on 14th July, 1853, under which she was sold. In this execution the present defendant was the plaintiff, and to justify his proceedings, alleged that the sale to the plaintiff was void, being made to defraud the creditors of Hardin, of whom he was one. To make out his defense on this point, he gave in evidence several notes, executed by Hardin to himself, on one of which, a judgment had been obtained, and on which the execution above referred to was issued; and to show, as we presume, that the note was a bona fide one, and for a valuable consideration, he was permitted by his Honor to prove that he had, in March preceding, taken from Joseph Hardin a deed for a tract of land for 330 acres, one hundred of which were claimed by the present plaintiff: and the parties having got together, it was agreed that the conveyance should be cancelled, and a new one executed for two hundred and thirty acres, which was done. To make good to the defendant the loss of the hundred acres, Hardin executed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Love v. Pressley
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • December 7, 1977
    ...of conduct, from which the probability of the second act is inferable, then the evidence of the first act is not admissible. Holmesly v. Hogue, 47 N.C. 391 (1855). 1 Stansbury's North Carolina Evidence, (Brandis Rev.1973), (hereinafter, Stansbury), § 91. Nevertheless, if "the doing of the f......
  • State v. Shuford
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1873
    ... ... Hogue, 2 Jones, 391, cited and approved.)INDICTMENT for murder, tried at Spring Term, 1873, of CATAWBA Superior Court, before his Honor, Mitchell, J.The ... ...
  • Commonwealth Insurance Co. v. Sennett et al.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • January 6, 1862
  • Follansbee v. Walker
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • October 27, 1873
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT