Skip to content

Hoskins v. Wall

Joseph Hoskins v. Pinkney Wall.

Hoskins v. Wall, 77 N.C. 249 (1877)

Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided: June 5, 1877
Judges: PeaRSON
Citations: 77 N.C. 249

Cited by 8

Headnotes

Purchase Money for Land — Discharge in Bankruptcy. A discharge in bankruptcy bars the collection of a debt contracted for" the purchase of land, which has been allotted to the debtor as a homestead in the proceedings in bankruptcy. ,

Summary

Civil ActioN tried at Fall Term, 1876, of Guilford Superior Court, before Kerr, J. The plaintiff brought this action to recover the, value of a-note given by the defendant for the purchase money of a-tract of land bought of one A. C. Caldwell, who afterwards-assigned the note to plaintiff. During the pendency of the action the defendant filed his petition in bankruptcy. No-creditors proved their claims. His homestead in the land, had been assigned by the Sheriff before the commencement of this action, and the assignee in bankruptcy conveyed the reversionary interest in the same to the defendant, and t-he-homestead was reassigned by order of the Federal Court in. the proceedings in bankruptcy. His plea of discharge' in bankruptcy was filed and admitted, and as the effect of this-discharge is the basis of the decision of this Court, a further statement of the facts is unnecessary. ‘His Honor gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and ordered the land to' be sold for the payment of his debt. From this judgment-the defendant appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — PeaRSON

PeaRSON, C. J.

The only question in the case is, does the' defendant’s discharge in bankruptcy apply to the demand off the plaintiff? "We think it does.

The debt to the plaintiff is for the purchase'money of ther *250 .land.

This, under tbe Constitution and tbe statute, rides over tbe homestead, and the execution, creditor can sell tbe land, the homestead to the contrary notwithstanding, provided he has an execution under which to sell. "When he •asks for a judgment and execution, he is met by the fact, ■“ the defendant is discharged by a decree in bankruptcy, which is pleaded in bar of the further prosecution of your .action.” How is this met ? The plaintiff says, “ I have a lien, or something akin to a lien, (as Mr. Gilmer termed it oh the argument), which the bankrupt proceedings are bound to respect.” That is the question ; What is a lien ? —A mortgage is an express lien. A docketed judgment is -a lien by statute, and any one wishing to be informed can :see for himself by looking at the books of the County. But in regard to obligations for the payment of the purchase •money, there is no- mode provided by which to give it notoriety. If a vendor makes a deed for the land instead of retaining the title as security, it is his folly. True, when he gets a judgment and issues execution, the homestead is not in his way. In that respect he is better off’ than other creditors, but he has acquired no lien, no “ hold ” on the land. .Suppose the vendee sells the land to one who knows it has not been paid for, the purchaser has a good title ; for the ■vendor can get no judgment against him, and a judgment against the vendee will not reach property that he has sold. So the vendor, although he has the notes given for the purchase money, has no lien — nothing “ that sticks ” like a mortgage or docketed judgment.

It follows that the defendant’s discharge in bankruptcy bars the plaintiff’s debt, and if he can get no judgment and ■execution, the homestead is not drawn in question.

Error. Judgment for defendant.

PER Curiam. Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Hamra v. Fitzpatrick1916 OK 67, 154 P. 665
H. E. Westerman Lumber Co. v. Raschke215 N.W. 197 (Minn. 1927)
Smith v. High85 N.C. 93 (1881)
Graham & Co. v. Richerson42 S.E. 374 (Ga. 1902)
Moore v. Ingram91 N.C. 376 (1884)
Boone County Bank v. Hensley35 S.W. 1104 (Ark. 1896)

Most recent

H. E. Westerman Lumber Co. v. Raschke215 N.W. 197 (Minn. 1927)
Miller v. Equitable Credit Co.133 S.E. 750 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926)
Hamra v. Fitzpatrick1916 OK 67, 154 P. 665
In re Butler120 F. 100 (N.D. Ga. 1902)
Graham & Co. v. Richerson42 S.E. 374 (Ga. 1902)
Boone County Bank v. Hensley35 S.W. 1104 (Ark. 1896)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.