McManus v. Tarleton
| Decision Date | 05 June 1900 |
| Parties | McMANUS et ux. v. TARLETON. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Union county; McNeill, Judge.
Action by N. J. McManus and wife against J. J. Tarleton. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
A transfer of property made to defraud creditors is valid between the parties.
R. B Redwine and Armfield & Williams, for appellant.
Adams & Jerome, for appellees.
This is an action for the possession of land. The plaintiffs claim title as heir at law (the wife) of G. W. Little, assignee of W. C. Tarleton. The defendant claims title as the heirs at law of W. C. Tarleton. The pleadings admit that the feme plaintiff is the legal owner of the land in controversy. But the defendant alleges that the deed from W. C. Tarleton to G W. Little was intended by the parties as a power of attorney and not as a deed, but by the inadvertance and the ignorance of the draftsman and of the parties the same was drawn, in form, a deed in fee simple. The defendant therefore asks that the deed be reformed, and that plaintiffs be declared trustees of the land for his benefit. The plaintiffs reply to the defendant's answer; alleging that the deed was not intended as a power of attorney, and drawn as a deed through mistake and ignorance of the parties, and deny the same, and allege that it was a fee-simple deed, and, in fact, that said deed was made to delay, hinder, and defraud the creditors of the grantor, W. C. Tarleton. Upon this state of the pleadings there was an issue submitted to the jury, as to whether the deed was made to defraud the creditors of W. C. Tarleton also, another, as to whether it was intended as a power of attorney, and drawn in form a deed in fee simple by mistake; and also another, as to whether the plaintiff was the owner of the land in controversy. The jury found that the deed was not made to defraud creditors, and that it was not intended as a power of attorney, but as a deed of conveyance; and the court, having reserved the issue as to the ownership of the land, found it in favor of the plaintiffs.
Before the commencement of the trial in the court below, the defendant made a motion to dismiss the action upon the ground that the plaintiffs had alleged in their replication that the deed to G. W. Little, under whom they claim, was made to defraud creditors. The court refused the motion, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial