Volume 57 — North Carolina Reports

<p>This bill was filed in the Court of Equity of Cumberland County, and removed by consent to this Court.</p> <p>The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, Alexander McDonald, was indebted to him in the sum of $134, in two several notes, on which he recovered judgments before justices of the peace, and took out executions thereon — that the same were levied on the tract of land which is the subject of this controversy, and that it was sold to the defendant McLeran, for the sum of one dollar, and that no part of his debt has been satisfied. He further alleges, that the land in question, was bought by the defendant, Eliza, wife of the said McDonald, and the deed taken in her name; that this was done on the ground and claim, that the said Eliza had been permitted by her husband to work for herself, and to have the proceeds of her own personal labor.</p> <p>The plaintiff contends that the wife’s labor belongs to the husband, and that by the policy of the law's of this State, no such protection is afforded to the earnings of the wife as to secure it to her, and that this land having been purchased with money, which in law, was the husband’s, the same is subject to the payment of his debts; that the purchase by McLeran amounts to nothing, for that there was no legal or equitable estate in the husband which could be sold by execution, or if there wTas any such, he avers that the said McLeran purchased upon an exprees trust to hold for the defendant, Eliza, the wife. The prayer of the bill is to subject the land in question to plaintiff’s debt.</p> <p>The answer of the defendant Eliza, the wife, states that, her husband the defendant, Alexander, greatly neglected his family, and was much addicted to intemperance; that on this account, she was obliged to live apart from him; that she obtained the privilege from her said husband of working for the support of herself and family, with an understanding and agreement that whatever she could make, beyond such support, should be her own exclusive property, free from his debts, and beyond his control; that being a good seamstress, she was able, by dint of diligence and economy, to lay up, from time to time, small sums wherewith she purchased the land in question, and by the same kind of exertions paid for the building of a house thereon; that this was long before the indebtedness of her husband to the plaintiff arose; that it was very well known in the vicinity that she wras permitted by her husba nd to trad and work for herself; that she was credited and charged in the books of merchants in the town of Fayetteville, on her own account, and not on that of her husband, who, for a great number of years, was not at all looked to for any debt of her contracting, nor for any of the expenses of the family; that this purchase was made by her since the act of 1818, and that the object was to vest an absolute title in herself for her sole use and benefit.</p> <p>The defendant, McLeran, says that he purchased the land without any concert or understanding with the defendant, Eliza; that he knew nothing of the previous judgments, or of the proposed sale; that happening to be present when the sheriff cried the sale, he bid one dollar, at which the land in question -was knocked off to him, and he took the sheriff’s deed for it. He further says, that after the sale, he made a public declaration, that if any friend of Mrs. McDonald would pajr him back the sum paid by him, he would release the title to her. He insists, as the case now stands, upon the validity of his purchase.</p> <p>The answer of McDonald, the husband, confirms the allegations in the answer of the wife.</p> <p>The cause was heard upon bill and answers, and tramsmitted to this Court.</p> <p>1st. That the earnings of the wife, during the coverture, were the earnings of the husband, for which the husband could sue alone, or as matter of favor, j oin his wife. And that lands, so purchased, were, in Equity, the lands of the husband, unless under peculiar circumstances which do not arise in this case. But, where the legal title is in the wife, the husband has no such interest as is liable under the statute of 1812, because there is no estate as contemplated by that enactment. It is only a “jus merum,” a mere right to asubpcena for the declaration of a trust, as distinguished from a trust actually in esse, or the estate within the meaning of the act. Kelson v. Hughes, Jones’ Eq. vol. 2nd page, 37 — top.; also, Rev. Code, for the statute of 1812.</p> <p>2nd. It cannot be claimed for tbe wife that she is a “ sole trader ” by any general law or particular custom. The policy of our law, with an eye to domestic harmony, has been against it; hence the supposed merger of the existence of the wife into that of her husband. A man cannot grant to his wife during the coverture, albeit he may devise lands, for that takes effect after the death of the devisor. He may covenant with, another to stand seized, or make a feofment to her use ; Litt. sec. 168, 1 vol. But he cannot covenant with her to stand seized, because they are one. She may be his agent, and if she buys with his money, she becomes his trustee, and the lands his. The husband may rejmdiate the contract out and out, but because he may assent to such agency, it does not change the relation of the parties, nor vest in her an interest which flows from the consideration paid by the husband. In ornease, the lands were purchased without consulting McDonald, without his knowledge, and at a time wdien he w-as confessedly insolvent. It is true, he assented aftenvards, but not until he had obtained credit upon the faith of lands purchashed ■with his money.</p> <p>The case of Kee v. Yasser, Ire. Eq., vol. 2d, p. 553, presents the question between the executor and the wife of the testator:as between them, the law is plain enough, but how it would be, if the complainant had been a creditor, (which is our case) the Court, in that event, did not decide. The land was evidently bought without his knowledge at the time, and he had the right to insist upon a conveyance to himself; he was insolvent then, and ever afterwards, and he cannot now assent to an arrangement which, while it procures credit, withholds the means of payment. It would be a blind, a trap if it were so. Whatever right McDonald, after the purchase, had to call for the estate, to that right a bona fide creditor succeeds.</p> <p>3rd. As to the other defendant, McLeran, he can only have what he got at la/w under his sheriff’s deed, wdiich was the bare possession. McDonald had nothing more; he wras not a tenant by courtesy inchoate, because a man cannot be that of a mere right.. The wife must be seized. And if McLeran got nothing, and is in possession of lands that do not belong to him, he holds upon an implied trust, for the benefit either of McDonald, or any dona fide creditor, as is substantially set forth in Page v. Goodman, Ire. Eq., vol. 8, page 16. He is a volunteer; his condition is that of a speculator, and cannot by any peferred Equity call for the estate to the prejudice of complainant’s right, who is a dona fide creditor.</p> <p>4th. If it be insisted, that because McLeran got nothing, he is improperly made a party, the answer is, he is interested in the subject matter of the decree, and his rights to the possession, even, ought not to be passed upon without his being heard, because the prayer is a specific one, under the before recited case of Page v. Goodman; and this, too, whether he traverses the holding for the benefit of his co-defendant or not, for the reason before given.</p> <p>5th. The case does not present that of a “ naked trust,’’ and, therefore, liable under the statute of 1812. It is not within the provisions of 13 Eliz., because it was no conveyance dy the husband to defraud creditors, and for that reason void. It is not within the statute of 1848, for protection of feme coverts’ estate, because not by descent or devise, but simply a mere right in the husband to have lands, purchased with his own money, to be declared his lands, and liable to his debts, to all of which rights, his creditors succeed, whether in the hands of the original holder or those of a voluntary purchaser at the sheriff’s sale.</p>

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Wake county. The facts of this case, and the point discussed at the bar, sufficiently appear from the opinion of the Court.

Cause removed from tbe Court of Equity of Franklin county. The bill, in this case, was filed to set up a deed, which it was alleged had been made by Stephen Sparks, to the feme plaintiff, (then Mary Ann White) for two slaves, Candice and. Minerva. The plaintiff, Mary Ann, had lived in the family with the said Stephen and his wife Elizabeth, from her early infancy, until the death of both.

Cause-transmitted from the Court of Equity of Washington County. Under the will of David Airs, a negro slave, named Henry, was limited to the defendant Ellen, upon a contingency that,, if she should die without leaving a child, the property in the said slave should go over to the surviving brothers and sisters.

<p>This was a petition for the partition of slaves, transmitted from the Court of Equity of Bertie.</p> <p>The only question, in this case, arises on the following clause of the will of William Ward :</p> <p>“ 5th. My will and desire is, that my negroes shall be divided between my wife Martha, and my children, in the following manner : I desire, and my will is, that the negroes, Mary, Jo, Amanda, Oscar and Turner, whom I have given to my son-in-law, Thomas W. Riddick, be deducted from his portion of an equal division of my negroes, and after that deduction, then I desire my negroes to be equally divided between my wife Martha, and all my children, my will and desire being, that my son-in-law, T. W. Riddick, should have an equal share of my negroes, by regarding the negroes, already given him, as a part of his share, or that ho shall have in value equal to the negroes already given to him, and mentioned above, less in his share, than my wife and my other children.”</p> <p>The plaintiffs are the executor and the other children of the testator, the wife having died in the testator’s life-time. The plaintiffs state that the parties had, at various times, endeavored to come to an amicable division of the slaves, but that this purpose had been thwarted by the unreasonable claim of the defendant, to have the valuation of the slaves conveyed to him, taken as of the time when he received them.</p> <p>The defendant answered, insisting that he was entitled to have the value of the slaves ascertained at the time of the conveyance.</p> <p>The cause was heard on the bill and answer.</p>

Cause transmitted from the Court of Equity of Eichmond County. The bill, in this case, was filed for an injunction, and for a reconveyance of the land in controversy, upon the ground that the defendant had notice of a prior entry of the plaintiff, and that, notwitstanding such notice, he made his entry and had the land surveyed, and obtained a grant before the plaintiff obtained his grant.

Cause transmitted from the Court of Equity of Washington county.

The bill alleges that the plaintiff, as administrator, with the will annexed, of Mrs. Yail, filed a bill in the Court of Equity of Craven county, in March last, against Thomas R. Emery, stating difficulties, and praying for advice as to the proper construction of certain items of the will of-his testatrix, most of which difficulties are re-stated in this bill, and amongst others, that he had in good faith changed an investment from a note on one Blackwell, which he deemed…

The bill was filed by the plaintiff as the administrator with-the will annexed of Mrs. Eliza Tail, for the auditing and settling the estate in his hands, and to that end he asks the Court todeclaro the rights of the legatees in several particulars wherein ho thinks his duties, as administrator, are doubtful; and his-course unsafe, without the instruction of the Court.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Moore County. The bill seeks to set aside two conveyances made by the plaintiff herself; one in 1815, to the defendant’s wife, and and the other in 1852, to the defendant Munroe.

This bill was filed for an account of the estate and effects of the plaintiff, which have been managed for many years by Bryan, acting under a power of attorney from the plaintiff.

Cause removed from the Conrt of Equity of Johnston Comity. Doctor Josiali 0.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Wake county. William E. Blackwood, the husband of Mary A. Black-wood, and the father of the infant plaintiffs, contracted to buy the laud in controversy, and took from the defendant Dempsy Powell, a bond to make title to him for the same ; which said hond was drawn by the defendant Jacob Powell, and witnessed by him.

Petition to rehear a decree passed, in this canse, at the last term of this Court, Jones’ Eq. vol. 3, p. 449. Held: that the consideration shall be not only valuable, in a technical sense, but substantial, and not grossly inadequate ; Pullenwider v. Poberts, 1 Dev. and Bat. 278. It is true, that expressions may be found in the text books, Roberts’ Fraud.

This was an appeal from an interlocutory order of the Court of Eqnityof Guilford County, continuing an injunction to the bearing. Judge Saunders presiding.

<p>This was an appeal from the Court of Equity, from an order allowing alimony pendente lite.</p> <p>The facts set out in the face of the petition, are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.</p>

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Orange county. The bill alleged a parol contract, which was, that the defendant should convey to the plaintiff, Murdoch, a certain house and lot, in the town of Hillsboro’, which is described in the bill according to certain metes and bounds, but the only memorandum, or written evidence of the contract, relied on, was the following : “Deceived of A. C. Murdock one hundred dollars in tinware, and one carryall at seventy-five dollars,…

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Chatham County. The bill was filed against the executor of William Lassiter for an account and payment of legacies under his will.

The petition set forth that she was a widow of forty years old when she married the defendant, who was about the same age; that the match was determined on quite suddenly, she having very little acquaintance with the defendant, but having heard of him an excellent character; but that in about three months after their intermarriage, she found the defendant to be intemperate ; that she could not please him- — that in about eight months after they were married, he became…

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Person county. The bill was filed by the executor of the will of Josias Carver, senr., and certain legatees therein named, to obtain a construction of the following-clause of the will: “ I lend unto my daughter-in-law, Betsjr Carver, widow of mjr deceased son Josias, during her life or widowhood, the following property, that is to say, (describing several slaves,) and at her death, or marriage, I direct the same to be equally divided…

Judge Bailey presiding. The bill filed by the plaintiff, upon which the injunction issued, stated, in substance, that ¥ra.

<p>Causis removed from the Court of Equity of Wake County.</p> <p>This was a petition for the sale of land for partition. The The plaintiffs, William A. Coakley and his wife Sarah 13. Coakley, set forth in their petition that the latter was the daughter of Zadoc Daniel, who devised to her and her two brothers, Henderson and Thomas, the land in question as tenants in common in fee simple, to take effect and be enjoyed alter the death of their mother, Mrs. Martha Daniel; that she had lately died, and that before her death, Thomas, one of the joint legatees above mentioned, died intestate, without ever having married, and without leaving issue; that the plaintiff, Sarah and the other sisters and brothers of the said Thomas, of whom there are ten in all, are entitled, as heirs at law, to his third part of the land in question. Henderson Daniel, and the rest of the children and heirs at law of Zadoc Daniel, as also the infant children of Mrs. Coakley, are made defendants. Several of the defendants answered, and judgment pro oonfesso was taken as to the others. The heirs at law of Zadoc Daniel insisted that the share of Mrs. Coakley is only a life estate to her during her life, and that afterwards descends to them as the heirs of the said Zadock, the reversion not having been disposed of by the said will. The children of Mrs. Coakley, by their guardian ad litem, also answered, insisting that one third of the land in question was devised by the will of Zadoc Daniel to their mother for her life, and after her death, to them in remainder.</p> <p>The portions of the will of the said Zadoc, upon which, these controversies arise, are as follows :</p> <p>After providing for the children of a former marriage, and for his existing ■wife, by giving her a considerable number of personal chattels, and a life estate in the land in question, the will proceeds:</p> <p>“The residue of my property to be sold, and divided between my three youngest children, (the issue of the second marriage,) viz: Sarah B. Coakley, Henderson L. Daniel and Thomas P. Daniel, in the following manner, to wit: having advanced to Henderson L. Daniel one hundred dollars, to Thomas P. Daniel thirty dollars, and I have also loaned to my daughter, Sarah B. Coakley, seventy dollars, Thomas P. Daniel to receive as a gift seventy dollars, and Sarah B. Coakley to receive thirty dollars as a loan, and the residue, if any, to be equally divided among the three, to Henderson and Thomas, as gifts, and to Sarah, as a loan.” * * *</p> <p>“In case my wife should not marry, at her death, all the property to be divided between Sarah B. Coakley, Henderson L. Daniel and Thomas P. Daniel, share and share alike — to Henderson and Thomas and their heirs as gifts — to Sarah B. Coakley, as a loan, for the benefit of her and her children.”</p> <p>The cause was set for hearing upon the bill, .answers, former orders and exhibit, and sent to this Court by consent. ■</p>

This cause was before the Court at June Term, 1857, vide Jones’ Eq. vol. 3, page 152, upon an appeal from an interlocutory decree, refusing to dissolve an injunction.

Cause removed, from the Court of Equity of Davie County. In the year 1847, the defendant bid off, at a sheriff’s sale? three tracts of land, lying in the county of Davie, and having paid the money, to wit, $244, he took from the sheriff, a deed» conveying to him the said several tracts. Afterwards, he re sold the premises at a profit of about $300.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Caswell county. The main purpose of the bill, in this case, was, to call upon the executor for an account and payment of legacies, under the will of Nathaniel P. Thomas ; by a reference to the clerk and master, and upon a confirmation of his report, a decree passed upon all the matters involved in the pleadings, except whether the loss of several slaves, who died while the estate was in the hands of the executor, should fall upon him…

This was a suit removed from the Court of Equity of Wake county. The general scope and object of the bill was to enforce the equities, growing out of a contract, in writing, between the plaintiff, Weisman, and Richard Smith, the testator and devisor of the defendants, Penelope and Mary A. Smith, and against the latter and their alienees.

Cause removed from tbe Court of Equity of Buncombe county. The defendant, John Sumner, made an entry of vacant land in the office of the entry-taker of Buncombe county, on the tenth day of November, 1851, which describes the land as follows: “ One hundred acres of land, on the west side of French Broad Eiver, joining his own lands, and the lands of James Case,” which was intended to cover certain land adjoining his own and James Case.

Cause transmitted from the Court of Equity of Buncombe connty. The defendant, Isaac Rorabacb, took out a patent from the patent office, securing to him “ the exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using, and vending to others, a certain mixture,” a description whereof is given in the schedule annexed to the letters patent, and made a part of them.

Cause transmitted from the Court of Equity of Henderson county. One Joseph Pickett, purchased of the defendant, A. J. Edney, as the administrator pedente lite of Mrs. Sarah Edney, a negro woman and child belonging to the testatrix's estate, for which he gave a bond for $435, with Calvin Edney, Marvel Edney and Samuel J. Edney as his sureties.

<p>Where a purchaser of mining lands, machinery and slaves, gave a mortgage on the property to secure a balance of the purchase-money, and on account of difficulties arising in the title to portions of the property, it was agreed, in writing, on certain conditions as to paying interest and a sum down, that the payment of the residue of the purchase-money should be postponed until certain suits, about the slaves, should bo settled, it appearing that such conditions had been complied with, it was Held that an injunction to restrain the mortgagee from selling for the purchase-money due, ought not to have been dissolved on the' coming in of the answer.</p>

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Gaston County. George Entledge made bis will in (he year 1850, in which, after providing for his wife, ho bequeaths as follows: “ Also, I give to my three grand children, Yalentine Derr’s children, John, Louisa and Lavirah, the twelfth part of my estate, to he equally divided between said children.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Wilkes county. Alexander Gilreath, the plaintiff, in December, 1846, made a deed of gift of several slaves and other property, to the defendant, Noah Gilreath. The said Noah was the youngest son of nine children, and in 1822, on arriving at the age of twenty, all the other children, but two daughters, having left their father’s house, the defendant remained with him and assisted upon his farm and in his other business.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Watauga. The bill is filed in the name of William W. Allen, Cyrus E. Campbell, and his wife Martha, James L. Allen, Harvey W. Allen, Cyrus W. Allen, the children and heirs at law of C. A.' Allen, and by Clarissa Allen, his widow; and charges that the defendant, John S. Davis, is the administrator of the estate, and that assets to a considerable amount came, or ought to have come, to his hands more than sufficient to pay the debts of…

The plaintiff filed a bill in forma pa/uperis in the Court of Equity of Henderson county, at the Spring Term, 1855, alleging that on 4th of August, 1852, she entered into a written contract with the defendant Johnston, to convey to her a small tract of land at the price of forty dollars — whenever the same should be paid; of which sum, twenty dollars was to be paid on 1st of January, 1853, the remainder on 1st January, 1854 ; that this contract was drawn by the defendant…

<p>Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Lincoln County.</p> <p>The plaintiff was a young man, living about eight miles from Lincolnton, quite inexperienced in business, and ignor: ant of its forms.</p> <p>On the day of this transaction, he came into the town upon business, and being in the store house of Moss & King, the latter asked him to witness a bond which Moss had made to him for the penal sum of ten thousand dollars, he took him to the writing desk, and producing the bond, asked Moss if that was his act and deed, Moss answered in the affirmative; he then presented the paper to the plaintiff, who asked King where he should sign as a witness. Lie pointed to the space under the name of the principal, where there had been a scroll written for a seal, and the plaintiff, with a belief that he was signing it as a witness, subscribed his name there as a co-obligor.</p> <p>The paper proved to be a penal bond in ten thousand dollars payable by the defendant King and conditioned that Moss should pay ail the debrs of the firm of Moss and King which was insolvent for a large amount. The prayer is, that the said bond be declared void, and be surrendered for cancellation.</p> <p>The defendant having left the State, there was judgment pro oonfesso as to him. The other partner, Moss, answered, and was examined as a witness; he proved the fraud as above stated.</p> <p>The cause was set down forbearing on the bill, answer, proofs and former orders, and sent to this Court.</p>

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Stokes County. It appears from the record of the County Court of Stokes, that an attachment was returned into that court at the instance of the plaintiff against the defendant, George ~W. Folger levied on 231 acres of land on the waters of Belew's Creek, on which a judgment was rendered at March Term, 1827, for $119, 90.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Wake County. ■The bill was filed' against the defendant, Hawkins, as the executor of Sherwood Haywood'and against R. W. Haywood, as the executor of Elen or Haywood, who was one of the executors of the said' Sherwood' Haywood, by some of the residuary legatees in remainder, after the death of Mrs. Haywood, praying an account of the said estate and payment of their legacies. 'The other legatees, under the said will, were made parties…

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Perquimons county. The original bill is filed against Willis Bagly, executor of Martha N. Turner, praying for an account of the estate, and suggesting a misapplication of the fuuds. Afterwards, a supplimental bill is filed against Sawyer and others, alleging that they have received from Bagly certain property belonging to the estate of the testatrix, for which they are accountable.

<p>Cause remo ved from the Court of Equity of Person county.</p> <p>•' William Baird and Lucy Anri Jones; béing about to be married, entered into a contract, in writing, called herein a marriage settlement, reciting that both were possessed of considerable property, and conveying the estate and property belonging to her, consisting of land, slaves, &c., to her two brothers, Thomas, and Roger A. Jones, in trust, to permit the said William, during the joint lives of himself and wife, “to cultivate the said tract of land, and use the said slaves, and other personal property, and to have, receive, take, and enjoy all the crops, hires, rents, issues and profits, to and for his own use and benefit,” and on the death of Mr. Bail’d, she surviving, the property may to go to her, but on her death, leaving him surviving, then to her appointees or legatees, and in case she should make no appointment or testamentary disposition, then to her heirs and next of kin, according to the laws of Virginia. After several provisions securing his estate against the wife’s claim for dower, distributive share, &c., the deed provides, “And whereas, the said Lucy Ann, by agreement, entered into with her brothers, is bound to pay a certain portion of the debts of her father, it is hereby agreed that the funds, necessary for her compliance with this agreement, shall be raised from the sale of crops, made on the above mentioned plantation, or, if necessary, by the sale of some part of the property herein convej’ed ; it being the intention of the said Lucy Ann, that the said William shall not be required to pay the whole, or any part thereof, out of his own estate.”</p> <p>In the year 1828, it became desirable to sell one of the slaves, above conveyed, a young negro woman, named Jenney, whose conduct had become displeasing to her mistress ; whereupon, by the consent of the trustees, a sale was made by Mr. Baird, the husband, and the price received and used by him. At the same time, he executed an agreement, in writing, to substitute in her place another female slave of equal value with the one sold ; but some two years afterwards, not being satisfied with the instrument containing this agreement, he executed to ThomaS’ Jones, the surviving trustee, another instrument — a deed, dated 26th of June, 1830, of which the following is a copy : “ Whereas, in the year 1828, with the consent of my wife, Lucy Ann, I sold a negro woman, named Jenney, daughter of Oloe, which negro woman Jenney, by marriage contract between me and my said wife, was conveyed in trust to Thomas and Roger A. Jones, for purposes therein expressed, which contract is recorded in the clerk’s office of Halifax county, Ya., and as far as necessary, is intended to be considered a part of this instrument of writing; and whereas, it was understood at the time of the sale of Jenney, that I would substitute my negro woman, Mary, daughter of Molly, and the said Thomas Jones consenting to the said sale and substitution, as far as he is competent to consent, as surviving trustee: Now, therefore, know all men by these presents, that I, William Baird, in consideration of the premises, and for the further consideration of one dollar, paid to me by the said Thomas Jones, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, in order to make the said substitution, have granted, bargained, and sold, substituted, and conveyed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, and sell, substitute, and convey, unto the said Thomas Jones, in trust, for the same purpose and benefit expressed, or intended in the said marriage contract, the said negro woman, Mary, and her child, Washington, born since my agreement to substitute Mary in the place of Jenney, to have and to hold, &c.,” expressing the trusts as declared in the marriage contract.</p> <p>This deed, on its being executed, was delivered to the trustee, Thomas Jones, and, after remaining in his custody several days, was handed to the bargainor, who promised and agreed to take it to the county of Person, in North Carolina, where he and his wife resided, and where the slaves in question werej and home the, same registered. , This was not done by him, and the deed is still unregistered. This deed has no subscribing witness. It remained in the possession of the defendant’s testator, Mr. Baird, for several years, and was by him handed to his wife, the plaintiff, Lucy Ann, who produced it after his death in the year 1857. The bill further alleges that after the death of Mr. Baird, the plaintiffs demanded the slave, Mary, and her increase, of the executors, who refused, to give them up. ' '</p> <p>The prayer of the bill is, that the defendants, who are the executors of Mr. Baird, shall be decreed to surrender the woman, Mary, and her offspring, born since the year 1828, and make a proper conveyance of the same to the trustee for the use and benefit of the plaintiff, Lucy Ann, according to the terms of the marriage settlement, and for an account of hire, &c..</p> <p>The defendants, being executors, in their answer, do not profess to know any thing of the matters above stated, but they express a belief that, as their testator had to pay a large sum for his wife, (over three thousand dollars,) which she was bound to pay to the United States on account of her father’s liability as a custom house officer — he altered his purpose of making this conveyance, and that in this way its not being registered is accounted for. They insist, further, that if the plaintiffs have anjr equity in the premises, that out of such claim should be deducted the sum paid as above mentioned, with interest thereon, being paid out of his own means by their testator, for and on account of his wife; which by the marriage contract he was to be entirely exempted from.</p> <p>The defendants also rely upon the statute of limitations and the presumption of abandonment arising from the length of. time.</p> <p>The cause was set down for hearing on the bill, answer, exhibits and proofs, and sent to this Court.</p>

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Craven county. On the 22d of January, 1840, Bhoderick S. Shute executed to the plaintiff a mortgage in fee of several tracts of land to save him harmless as his surety in several bonds and notes given by them to several persons and registered on tlie 29th of January, 1840.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Anson county. Jeremiah Ingram, of Anson county, died in February, 1856, having made his will in December, 1853, ia which he made the following dispositions: “Item 1st. My will and desire is, that all my negroes, in this'Stftte, be kept together and worked-onmy plantation, nntil the lease that Presley and Elizabeth Stainback have on my plantation shall expire, except such of them as I shall otherwise dispose of. “ Item 2nd.

The bill is filed by tbe next of kin of Turner Mason, who died in Orange county intestate, against Marcum, who administered on his estate. The defendant submitted to an account; but by his answer objects to being charged in the account for the value of two slaves, whom he sold on credit and for whom he received nothing, by reason of the insolvency of the purchaser and the sureties in his bond.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Bladen county. William H. Beaty, made his will ou the 16th of May, 1849, and therein bequeathed to Margaret Holmes and Lucien Holmes, the children of a deceased daughter, the stun of $500 each.

This cause ivas heard at December Term, 1856, and is reported 3 Jones’ Eq. 25, and Samuel B. Spruill has filed a petition to rehear a part of the decree then made. The facts material to that part of the case, are as follows: The partnership of Clary and Spruill, the estate of the deceased partner, Clary, and the surviving partner, B. J. Spruill, are hopelessly insolvent, and were so on the 10th of February, 1855.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Onslow County. Edward B. Dudley, made his will on the 15th of October, 1852, and therein, after providing for his wife, devised and bequeathed as follows: “ Thirdly.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Craven County. Thomas Jerkins made his will in 1829, and died in 1855, when it was admitted to probate.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Perquimons co; Four notes, of §300 each, with an amount of interest thereon, drawn by William T. Sumner and J. M. Sumner, and payable to Willis II.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Orange county. On the 23rd of September, 1852, Anne L..

Cause removed for argument from the Court of Equity of Guilford county. The bill states the following case : A negro, called Daniel Jones, employed the plaintiff to sell a buggy and jackass for him. The plaintiff took the articles to South Carolina, and sold them for $450 ; of which, the sum of $250 was to be paid at a subsequent time, and was secured by a note of the purchaser to the plaintiff.

On the 15th da3r of August, 1855, the defendant, ¿arnés F. Jordan, by a deed of trust, conveyed a house and lot, in the eity of Raleigh, to John G. Williams, to secure a debt to the plaintiff, of about $1000, which was registered 23rd of August, 1855, under which, the lot in question was afterwards sold to the plaintiff, and a deed made to him for the same.

The bill alleges that' the defendant, Monot, on the 22d day of June, 1853, executed to the plaintiff a bond for the sum of $3,750, payable on the 1st day of January, 1857, with interest, from the date, which was given, in part satisfaction, for a tract of land, purchased from the plaintiff by the said Monot; that the said Monot now lives in the State of New York, and has no property or effects in this State subject to attachment or execution at law.

<p>Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Davidson county.</p> <p>Tins cause was set for hearing upon the original and supplemental bills and the answers and exhibits, and upon them the following appears to be substantially the case :</p> <p>In April, 1848, William J. McElroy conveyed to Francis Fries, sundry tracts of land, situate in Davie county, fifteen slaves, and other articles of personal property, in trust, to secure and pay a debt of $6000 to the said Fries, as the guar.dian of Miss Shober, and a debt of $844, to another person. Some payments were made on these debts, but a balance remained due on them after all the property, conveyed to Fries, had been disposed of by him and McElroy, except fourteen of the slaves; and on the 1st of September, 1854, McElroy sold those slaves to Fries for the sum of $8000, of which, the ■ sum of $2000 was paid at the time to McElroy, and of the residue, $2000 was to be paid on the 1st of November, the 1st of January, and the 1st of March following; and it was a part of the agreement, that out of the said residue of the pnrchase-monejq Fries should retain enough to discharge the balance due on the debts secured by the deed of trust of 184S. On the 22d of September, 1854, McElroy having become insolvent, made a deed of general assignment to Fries of all his real and personal estates and effects, including slaves, notes, judgments, and all debts, horses and other things, in trust, to sell the property, collect the debts, and out of the proceeds, pay a debt of $3575, 72, to the Qreensborough Mutual Life Insurance and Trust Company, and he thereby constituted Fries his attorney with directions to pay, in the next place, out of the proceeds, all McElroy’s other debts, as the said Fries might deem best, and find most convenient. The only real estate owned at the time by McElroy, was a house and lot in the town of Greensborough, in Guilford county. Besides the above mentioned debt to Fries, McElroy owed him other sums, as the answer states, and also owed a debt to a mercantile firm, of which Eries was a member; and he alleges, in.his answer, that McElroy owed many other persons, and that to some of them, he, Eries, made payments, or promises of payment, at different times, up to the 1st of March, 1855.</p> <p>On the 14th of November, 1854, the plaintiff, McRary, recovered two judgments before a justice of the peace, in Davidson county, against McElroy ; one for $74,24, and the other for $6,40, both bearing interest from that day; and on 15th of November, 1854, Hunt & Adderton obtained a similar judgment against him for $46,56, with interest from that day, which they assigned to the plaintiff on the same day. On the three j udgments, writs of fieri facias were issued immediately to the sheriff of Davidson county, who, thereon, returned that he had levied the same on the resulting trust and equity of redemption of McElroy, in all the property conveyed by him to Eries, by the deed, bearing date September 22d, 1854.</p> <p>On the 24th of November, 1854, McRary filed this bill against Eries, McElroy and the Inusurance and Trust Company, alleging that McElroy had conveyed and assigned to Eries, all his estates and interests of evely kind, by the deed last mentioned, and there was nothing on which an execution could be served, but the resulting trust in the house and lot in Greensborongh, and praying that Eries might be compelled to get in, and dispose of the effects assigned to him, and there-out pay the debt to the Insurance and Trust Company, and out of any balance remaining, satisfy the debts to the plaintiff, and that proper accounts might be taken. On the same day the subpoenas were taken out, and were served on the next, day. Eries, by his answer, sets out, amongst other things, that McElroy, on the 2d of January, 1855, made a second deed of trust, whereby, as security for the payment or certain debts to James P. Stimson, and many others mentioned in the deed, he conveyed and assigned to Stimson, in trust, all the property before conveyed to Eries, and all the proceeds of it, then, or that might be, in the hands of Eries, under the conveyance to him, after paying the debt to the Insurance and Trust Company ; and that he had been informed thereof by Stimson, and certain dealings had taken place between them, touching parís of the property. The answer insists that Stimson ought to be made a party, for the protection of Fries. By leave of the Court, the plaintiff then filed an amended and supplemental bill, bringing in Stimson, and charging that the deed, to him, as above set forth, was'made to defeat the plaintiff of his debts, and that the debts secured in it, were not just, but pretended, and that the plaintiff’s right to satisfaction out- of the fund, was preferable, at any rate. Stimson answered, that the debts mentioned, in the deed to him, are all just and true, as he believed, and, that those to himself are so ; and he denies havingatjy knowledge whatever of the plaintiff’s judgments, or of his bill having been filed, at the time the deed of trust was made to him.</p>

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Rockingham cty. By her will, dated September 17th, 1854, Sarah Mills bequeathed as follows: aI will and bequeath to my daughter, Sarah C. Holderby, one negro woman, Anne, and her child, Edmund, and her increase, to her and increase forever; also one bed and bed-stead, cupboard, and one cow, to her and her heirs forever.” By other clauses, she gives several slaves and sums of money to her other children respectively, “ to him (or her)…

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Forsyth County. The bill is filed by Jacob L. Fulkerson to obtain a construction of certain clauses in the will of Catherine Heckendom, and for directions in the settlement of the estate under the same. The next of kin of the testatrix were Rosiua Luckenbach, a sister, and Charles Chitty', Catherine Henning, Maria Spach, and Elizabeth Spach, children of a deceased sister, Elizabeth Chitty'.

f Chatham, continuing an injunction. The plaintiff, Dennis Tysor, being indebted to the Bank of Fayetteville, in the sum of $101, with Harris Tysor and G. W. Palmer, the intestate of the defendant Goldson, his sureties, and not being prepared to pay it off, made a new note for $250, payable to the defendant, W. G. Broadfoot, cashier of the bank of Fayetteville, with the same sureties, and left it with the defendant, Lutterloh, to be presented to the bank for discount.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Davidson County. The questions arising in this case, arise out of several provisions in the will of Moses Holmes, one of which is as follows; “I give and bequeath to my daughter, Sarah Miller, a negro girl, named Nancy, and a boy, named Robert, now in her possession another of which is as follows: “ 9th.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Martin County. Aqnilla Ilyman bequeathed to his daughter, the defendant, Sally Ann, a negro woman, named Minerva, and a girl bjr the name of Piney, with a contingent limitation to her children, if she should have any, “ but, should she die without a lawful heir, iu that case I wish for the said negroes to revert to Ada-line Ilyman, Peter Ilyman, Gabriel Ilyman and Aqnilla Hyman.” After other devises and bequests in the said will…

<p>Where a bill, for an injunction, alleged that the notes sought to be enjoined, were given as consideration that the defendants would procure and make him a fee simple title to a tract of land, in which they then had only an estate pur autre vie, which they denied, and, in fact, were .unable to procure and make such title, and plain tiff’s allegation was corroborated by the terms of a deed, which they did make, and tire defendants answered evasively, insisting upon an unequal and improbable version of the transaction, the Court ordered the injunction to be continued to the hearing.</p>

<p>At the last term of the court, it was declared that the plaintiffs, Prudence and Louisa, were entitled to maintenance until ITemy McAden Richardson arrived at the age of twenty-one years, and it was referred to Thomas A. Donoho, a commissioner of the Court, to ascei tain how much they had received on this account, and how much was clue to them. On. the coming in of the report of the commissioner, showing the balances due, with interest thereon, the defendant, E. B. Richardson, excepted to the allowance of interest. The cause was heard on the exception.</p>

<p>A surety who pays tho debt of his principal under a judgment has an equity against the creditor to have the judgment assigned to a trustee for his reimbursement, and to pursue the bail of his principal for that purpose.</p>

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Chatham county. In contemplation of a marriage, about to take place between Dr. Charles Chalmers and Mrs. Mary Williams, a deed was made, dated 6th of May, 1830, wherein certain slaves (in number eighteen) were conveyed to the Messrs.

Gause removed from the Court of Equity of Randolph County. John McNeil, Sr., of Cumberland, (now Harnett,) county, died in the year 1850, having made his last will and testament, and appointed his son, John McNeil, Jr., his executor. He, having undertaken the trust, and acted therein, died intestate in 1857, and the plaintiff, Worth, became his administrator.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Wayne’ county. William Ilarriss intermarried with Mary Smith, and .after living together many years, she filed a petition against him fora divorce and alimony, which pended in the Superior Court of Duplin for several terms, when, at length, it was compromised by his making a deed, dated 31st of March, 1831, to Henry W. Houston, conveying a tract of land and some thirteen slaves, who, with their descendants, are the subject ■ of this…

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Wilson county. The bill was filed by the qjlaintiffs, as executors of Thomas Williamson, praying a construction of tire following clauses of liis will: “ 2nd.

This was a bill of information exhibited in the Court of Equity of Wake, to recover, to the use of the State, a forfeiture alleged to have been incurred by the Bank of Charlotte, by reason of the nonpayment of a tax, imposed by the revenue law of 1856. A general demurrer having been put in by the defendant, it was removed into this Court for argument. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the Court.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Rowan county. Daniel Cress, by his will, directed his estate to be sold by his executors, and bequeathed a certain share of the proceeds, which turned out to be $10,000, to trustees, in trust, to be lent out at interest, or invested in stocks, and the interest to be received by the trustees, and by them annually paid to his brother, Abraham IT.

Cause removed from tho Court of Equity of Mecklenburg County. ■ Thomas Hoover, a citizen of Mississippi, died in that State in 1856, leaving- a will, by which he disposed of a large amount of real and personal property lying beyond the limits of this State, much of which property was devised and bequeathed to collateral relations residing in North Carolina.

' ■ Upon the bill and answers, the case appears to be' 'this': Jonathan ITailey, of Richmond county, the father of the plain1 tiff, by his will, dated January, 1855, bequeathed as follows fC I give to my daughter Hannah, the wife of Eranklin C. Smith, my slaves, Lydia, Jim, Reuben and Hannah, to the :6ole and exclusive use of the said Hannah Smith, separate and apart from all control, or ownership of her said husband, and free from all liability for his debts or contracts,…

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Wilkes county. The bill was filed praying for an injunction to restrain tho collection of a judgment rendered in tho County Court of Wilkes, for. about $1,867.

Appkal from the Court of Equity of Iredell county, Manly, J., presiding. The bill was filed for the settlement of a partnership firm.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Mecklenburg cO. The plaintiff, in his bill, alleges that, as guardian of-certain infants, he took from one Cyrus Williamson a bond, on which there is a balance due of $100, to which one Augustus Alexder was surety ; that the said Alexander died in 1849, leaving a will, in which Cyrus Williamson aforesaid, was appointed executor; that, said executor paid and delivered to the defendants, as legatees of Alexander, all the remainder of…

<p>Appeal from an interlocutory order of the Court of Equity of Burke county continuing an injunction; Bailey, J., presiding.</p> <p>The facts of the case and the statutes referred to, are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.</p>

<p>These Causes were removed by consent from the court of equity of Rowan.</p> <p>Thomas L. Cowan, of the town of Salisbury, died in February, 1856, having made and published Lis last will and testament. He left surviving him iiis widow and two daughters, Charlotte, the wife of the plaintiff, Joel H. Jenkins, and Mary, the wife of the defendant, Hall. On the 29th of December, 1857, Mrs. Cowan died, leaving her two daughters surviving, one of whom, Mrs. Jenkins, had children, to wit, Elizabeth, Ella, Sally, Charlotte, Thomas L., John II., who are made parties defendant with their mother ; the other daughter, Mary, never had a child. The bill was filed in tlie first instance, praying that an account may be taken of several mercantile firms of which the testator had been a partner; in each of which, the plaintiff, J. II. Jenkins, was 'also a partner, and of the last of which, the plaintiff’s Jenkins and Roberts, are the surviving partners; and praying for directions as to the manner in which they should discharge their trust, as executors, in the several particulars set out. The. bill sets forth that the plaintiffs, Jenkins and Roberts, had the bulk of the assets in their hands, but that they were at a loss to know to whom they should make a payment of Mrs. Hall’s share, as the trustee mentioned in the will, P. B. Chambers, had declined to act; also, they prayed to have a construction put upon the following clauses of the will:</p> <p>“Item2. I give and bequeath to my beloved wife, Elizabeth, my whole right and title to the following negroes, Jack, &c., (naming eleven,) I also give her during her natural life, only, five other negroes, (describing them, and including in the same clause bank stock, money, furniture, &c.,) to be bona fide hers and at her disposal during her natural life, and then to be equally divided between my two daughters, Charlotte and Mary, and their children then living, or any they may have afterwards. She may in the meantime, if she thinks proper give off to one or both, such parts of it as suits their convenience, taking and keeping a correct account of the same, to be brought in upon a final settlement of that part of my estate.” -* * * ■ * -x- * -x- x -x- -x- X</p> <p>Item i. “I give and bequeath to Pinckney B. Chambers, agent and trustee for my daughter Mary’s sole use and benefit, and to her children forever, my negro woman Harriet, and all the children that she now has, and all that she may hereafter have. I do not now recollect the names, nor the number, but includes all that she ever had or may hereafter have together with their increase.”</p> <p>• Item 5. “I give to Pinckney B. Chambers, as agent and trustee of my daughter Charlotte C. Jenkins, for her sole use and benefit, her choice of all the balance not above named, as nearly the same in number and valuation as can be arrived at, and as much as can possibly be in one family. If this cannot be equitably in one family, it must be made up out of one or more of other families.”</p> <p>x * x -x- -x- -x- * -x- -x- x x</p> <p>Item 19. “ At the death of my wife, I wish the entire .or rather the whole of my estate to be divided between my two children, Charlotte and Mary, both real and personal, as equitably as it can be done, and as nearly as can be done, and in strict accordance with my direction as is contained in this my will. And should either of them be dead before that time, it is to go to their children.”</p> <p>Item 20. “ It is my will that if either of my children Qharlotte or Mary, should die without children, that then, the whole of the estate of the deceased one, both real and personal, shall go to the surviving one during her life, and then to her children.”</p> <p>Item 21. — I hereby nominate and appoint my friend, Pinckney B. Chambers, as agent or trustee for mjr children, Charlotte and Mary, to whom I convey the title of all of my property for their use and benefit; both lands, lots, houses, negroes or money, &c., the title to be vested in him, so that none of it can be disposed of in any manner whatever either by the wives or the husbands, without the consent and free will of the trustee, to be given in wilting, and assigning at the same time satisfactory reasons therefor. * * * And at the same time, I allow my children and their husbands, together with my grand children, to have, to possess, to use and enjoy all the profits, benefits, services and emoluments growing out of any of it, as if it was their own, and free from any incumbrance whatever.”</p> <p>Item 22. “I give and bequeath to my daughter Mary, a special legacy of five hundred dollars, to be paid to her personally, and to be hers forever, under the control of no other person whatever, either in money or property as she may prefer, and to be paid at some future time, when it is most convenient to my executors.</p> <p>Item 23. “ All the balance of my estate, of whatever it may consist, either in lands or money, in Mississippi or in this State, either in accounts, notes, money, or any other property, which I may have forgotten, and whatever may be due me from the several mercantile firms with which I have been connected, I allow, and so order, that they may all be put into my estate and settled equally between my two daughters, Charlotte and Mary, if then living; if not, to their children respectively, that is, after the death of my wife.”</p> <p>The principle question discussed by the parties was, whether the contingency of the death of one sister without issue, the other surviving, was limited and restricted to the event of Mrs. Cowan’s death, and it was contended by Hall and wife, that as neither of the sisters was dead w'hen their mother died, the estate of each one then vested subject to no contingency. Jenkins and wife and their children, maintained that it was the manifest intention of the testator to keep the contingency open until the death of one or the other of the sistei's, no matter whether that happened before or after the death of their mother.</p> <p>The bill of Jenkins and Roberts, &c., prayed for an ascertainment of the assets for which they were accountable, and from all other sources, and of the sums which the parties were severally entitled to, or bound to paju</p> <p>The obbject of the other bill is the same.</p>

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Bertie. The case, as stated in the pleadings, and established by the proofs, appears to he this t In 18-M, Lewis Wilson bequeathed certain slaves to his wife for her life, and ordered that at her death, they should be sold by his executors, and the money equally divided between three of his children, of whom the plaintiff was one.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Bertie. • The plaintiffs alleged in their bill, that the defendant, John Williams, became indebted to them in the sum of about §258, and that at November Term, 1858, of Bertie County Court, they obtained judgment for the amount; that shortly before the rendition of their judgment, the defendant had, by absolute conveyances, by deeds of trust, and executions in the hands of officers, been stripped of every species of property that…

<p>Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Greene County.</p> <p>Windsor Dixon died intestate in 1851, seized in fee of a tract of laud in Greene, containing 888 acres, and leaving a widow and also six children, and the child of a deceased daughter surviving him, who are his heirs at law. All the children were the issue of a second marriage, except the defendant, Mary E., who. is the wife of the defendant, John H. Coward. The bill is filed against Coward and wife, by the other children and the grand-ohildren, and prays for a partition of the said descended land, subject to the right of dower of the widow; and to that end, after alleging that actual partition could not be made without injury to the parties, it prays for a sale, and that the purchase money should be divided between the heirs, in the proportions in which they were entitled. And, as to those proportions, the bill states that, Windsor Dixon was entitled to, and seized of an estate for his life, as tenant by the curtesy, in a tract of land of which his former wife, the mother of the defendant, Mary E. was, in her lifetime seized in fee simple, and that by way of advancement, he conveyed his life-estate in that tract to his daughter, Mary E., upon whom the reversion had descended upon the death of her mother.</p> <p>The answer submits to a sale of the first mentioned tract of land as prayed for, but it claims one equal seventh part of that land or its proceeds, because it denies that the conveyance from Windsor Dixon was by way of advancement, and says it was upon a purchase by the husband, Coward, in consideration of a balance of money which the father owed his daughter as her guardian.</p> <p>Upon the issue of fact thus formed, the evidence establishes that the defendants intermairied in 1847, and that at the end of the year, the father let the defendant info possession of the land, and they continued in possession the three following years; in July, 1850, Mr. Dixon and Mr. Coward came to a settlement, and the latter gave to the former a receipt for $300, expressed to be in full payment for the balance due from Dixon, as the former guardian of his daughter, and expressed, further, to have been paid “in rent of land,” and on the same day Mr. Dixon executed a conveyance of his life-estate in the land to the two defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Coward, in consideration of natural love and affection and of one dollar. The annual value of the land at the time Coward was let into possession, is shown to be sufficient to make the rent for three years, at least equal to the balance due him in right of his wife.</p> <p>A decree was made by consent for the sale of the first mentioned tract; there was a sale of it for $12,000, and an order to distribute the proceeds, The cause was brought on to be heard on the question of advancement, and adjourned to this Court.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Court of Equity of Robeson county, dissolving an injunction and sequestration, Hbatii, Judge, presiding.</p> <p>William Byrd, by his will, bequeathed the slaves in question, and other property, to his widow, the defendant, during her natural life or widowhood, but provided, that if she died, or married, before their youngest child came to the age of twenty-one, that the said property and the increase should be equally divided among the plaintiffs, their children.</p> <p>The bill alleges, that the defendant, who was in possession of the slaves bequeathed, threatened that she would sell them to some person, who would carry them beyond the limits of the State, and had endeavored, and was then endeavoring to do so, and had repeatedly declared that the plaintiffs should never have any benefit of the said slaves.</p> <p>• The prayer of the bill is, that the property, in question, may be secured so as to be forthcoming on a certain day, named in the bill, when they allege they are entitled to have a division, and to take possession thereof.</p> <p>The answer of Mrs. Byrd denies the allegations pointedly and without evasion ; she says of Ell, one of the slaves mentioned in the pleadings, that finding her unruly, and being unable to manage her, she had been compelled to hire her out, and that she took the advice of a lawyer whether she had a right to sell her or her interest in her, and invest the proceeds in another negro, to be held for the benefit of her children, mentioned in the will, and that being advised that she could not sell and convey the absolute title to the said slave, she refused to make a conveyance of any interest whatever.</p> <p>There were four affidavits filed by the plaintiffs, two or them made by plaintiffs in the suit, reasserting some of the allegations in the bill; one other was that of oue Ivey, who deposed that “he heard Mrs. Martha Byrd say, that they had as well let her alone, and let her sell or hire the negroes, for they were there in her way, she feeding them there, and they doing but little good or none.” The fourth was that of Riley Kinlancl, who stated that “ he heard Mrs. Byrd say that she intended to do as she pleased with the property, when speaking of the negroes she got from her husband’s estate, let her children do what they would; that the negroes were her own and she meant to do as she pleased with them.” lie says that i! the property is not well taken care of, and it is continually less and less valuable by reason of neglect and bad management.” On the hearing of a motion to dissolve, these affidavits were excluded by his Honor, who ordered the injunction and sequestration to be dissolved, from which the plaintiffs appealed.</p> <p>On the hearing in this Court, the affidavits were read.</p>

The plaintiff is an infant, and the defendant Truitt was once her guardian, and on his resignation, the defendant Sikes was appointed, and he was afterwards removed, and another appointed. The bill is against Truitt, Sikes, and the persons who were the sureties in the respective bonds of the guardians, or the representatives of such of them as are dead.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Washington. Dempsey Spruill died in 1842, having made his will on 11th day of October, 1840, and a codicil ou the 4th of May, 1842.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Wake Comity. By an ordinance of a Convention of the people of North Carolina, dated 21st of July, 1788, and an act of the General Assembly, dated 30th of September, 1732, (he seat of Government was permanently established ou a tract of land adjoining the tract whereon Joel Lane lived, at Wake County Court House, and four hundred aeres of land embraced in that tract, was laid off and erected into a city, named the “city of Raleigh.”…

<p>It is tlie ordinary course of the Court of Equity to restrain the execution, but allow the plaintiff to proceed to a judgment at law; and it is only upon an averment in the bill, that the plaintiff in Equity believes the answer will afford discovery material to his defense at law, that an injunction to stay the trial, ought to be granted.</p> <p>A party cannot, while pressing his rights in a court of law, and resisting his adversary’s legal rights before that tribunal, carry the matter into a court of equity, upon tho ground, that the matters are too complicated for a court law, and thus have the matters before both tribunals at once.</p>

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Beaufort. Catharine Cutlar, under the will of her husband, John Cutlar, was the owner, for her life, of a slave, by the name of Caswell, with a remainder over to one Bryan Cutlar, aud for several years she was iu the enjoyment of the use and benefit of the said slave.

<p>A prior entry of vacant land, not acted on, but abandoned, (under a misapprehension of its efficacy) although known to a subsequent enterer, who complies with, the law and gets a grant from the State, can, in no degree, help out a still later entry and grant; for such abandoned entry becomes null and void after the time proscribed for its effectuation has expired.</p> <p>There is no policy of the State which requires that an. entry shall have lapsed before another can be made.</p>

Cause removed from the County of Wake. Everett Pearce, in the year 1807, bequeathed as follows:— “I lend to my beloved daughter, Patience Stevens, wife of Jacob Stevens, during the natural life of the said Patience, Jacob, or either of them, eight negroes, viz: Jerry, &c., (naming seven others) * * (then devising some land); and should my said wife, Rachel, die before the death of the said Jacob Stevens or Patience, that then, and in that case, I lend to the said Jacob and…

The bill was filed to recover from the executors of Thomas Fairbairn, all the residue of his estate, after paying some pecuniary legacies, which is given to the plaintiff by the will of the said Thomas, and, as incident thereto, to take the property out of the hands of the executors, and put it into those of a receiver. The allegations on which the latter application is based, are : 1st. That they are both using the means of the estate for their own purposes. 2nd.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Chowan. Samuel S. Simmons was appointed the guardian of the plaintiff, Joseph H. Wynne, and as such, received from the commissioner of the Court of Equity for the sale of land, three bonds, payable to himself as guardian, by John A. Benbmy and Thomas Benbury, one for $3025, due 1st of January, 1856, another, for the same sum due 1st January, 1857, and a third for that sum, due on 1st day of January, 1858, each of which said bonds was…

<p>It is usual to plead a decree in bar to a second suit for the same thing; but where the bill itself sets forth the substance of the pleadings in the former suit, and the decree given in it, and prays a discovery of facts contrary to the declaration then made, and a decree inconsistent with that decree, so that there is no need of a plea for the purpose of identifying the parties, and the subject matter of the second suit as being the same with that of the former, the objection may be taken by demurrer.</p>

Odenheimer and one Minzesheimer were copartners in trade, and became indebted to Waldheimer & Grossmayer, and were sued, and judgment obtained in Wayne. The plaintiff was the special bail of Minzesheimer, who absonded and went to New York.

Cause removed from tbe Court of Equity of Orange county. The plaintiff held a note on one William Copley for $240, on which a judgment was obtained in the County Court of Orange, and the defendant, professing to be insolvent, the execution thereon was returned nulla bona.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of McDowell County- Lewis Harris made his will in Jnly, 1845, containing the following provisions: “I give to my wife all my lands with all my stock of every kind, and all my farming tools, and household and kitchen furniture, to be fully possessed by her during her life, or widowhood. My daughter, Sarah, to have her maintenance off the land, during her natural life.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Watauga county. Philip Church, a very aged man, in the year 1854, was living with his daughter Lucy, who intermarried with one Nathaniel Church.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Buncombe County. Upon the pleadings, the case is this: On the 12th of April, 1848, Ohunn, the defendant, and one Samuel Fleming entered into written articles for the sale by the former to the latter, in fee, of certain lots in Asheville, on -which were situated a store and dwelling house, then occupied by the defendant, at the price of §5.100, payable on the 10th of July following, or at any time thereafter, upon the delivery of…

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Watauga county. The plaintiff alleges m his bill, that he was the owner of a negro woman, named Silvey, and her four children, William, John, Matilda, and Anderson, also of a tract of land, adjoining the defendant, Horton, on tvhich he lived, containing about 75 acres; that he was old, feeble in mind, unacquainted with business, and helpless, and had no family but his wife, who was also old and infirm ; that on the 22nd day of…

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Cleaveland County- Joseph Carroll, being the owner of a lot in the town of Shelby, sold it to Lewis Justice, and executed to him a title-bond for the same, dated 2nd of February, 1852.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Cleaveland county. The plaintiffs are the brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces of James P. Doggett, and filed this bill against his widow, who is the almost universal legatee, and executrix óf the said James. She has, since the death of Doggett, intermarried with the defendant, Posten.

<p>Where, on a contract to lease a mine for twelve months, in order that search might be made for minerals, it was agreed that the lessor should make a good title to one half of the minerals discovered, and the lessees permitted other persons (claiming a right) to make explorations and discoveries, which added greatly to the value of the property, without offering to assist, it not appearing that they were ready or able to do the necessary work, it was Held that they were not entitled to a specific performance.</p>

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Butherford county.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Alexander county. This bill is filed by the executor of Thomas Lackey, seeking the advice of the Court upon certain bequests in his will. That portion of the will necessary to a proper understanding of the question, is as follows : “3rd. I will and bequeath to my beloved wife, Margaret Lackey, as much of my plantation, with the improvements, as will support her her life-time.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Henderson County. Thomas Brummet, of Greenville District, South Carolina, by a will, properly executed for that purpose, bequeathed, (among other things) as follows: “Third.

, at the last Court of Equity of Watauga County. The bill alleges that the plaintiff, John S. Davis, became the administrator of Cyrus A. Allen; that the plantiffs, William W. Allen, Martha Campbell, James L. Allen, Harvy W„ Allen, and Cyrus A. Allen, Junior, are his children and heirs-at-law, and the plaintiff, Clarissa, his widow; that it appearing by sale of the personal assets, that they were insufficient to pay the debts, they joined in a petition to the County Court of…

The bill alleges that, in the month of June, 1855, the plaintiff bought a tract of land, lying in Watauga county, containing about two hundred acres, from the defendant, and that the same had been granted to one Dobson, through whom the defendant claims title ; that the plaintiff gave three several notes for the purchase-money, payable at different dates, and that the defendant made him (plaintiff) a deed in fee for the premises, with full covenants of seizin and warranty of…

The bill states, that Jacob A. Ramsour, was the surety of Barrett upon several notes and bonds, and becoming uneasy, he applied to Barrett for a counter security and indemnity, and that, thereupon, Barrett, Briggs, Henderson and Hoyle, executed their penal bond to Ramsour in the sum of $20,000, on the 5th of September, 1857, with a condition, that “if Barrett shall well and truly pay and discharge each and every of the bills, bonds, and notes, in or by which said Ramsour is…