TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Glanton v. Jacobs

GLANTON & COTTON Et Al v. JOB JACOBS, Trustee, Et Al.

Glanton v. Jacobs, 23 S.E. 335 (N.C. 1895)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 5, 1895
Judges
Clark
Citations
23 S.E. 335117 N.C. 427
Headnotes
Assignment for Benefit of Creditors — Failure by Assignor to File Schedule of Preferred Debts — Registration of Deed. 1. Failure to file schedule of preferred debts within five days after registration of deed of assignment for creditors, as required by Acts 1893, c. 453, renders the deed void. 2. Under Acts 1893, c. 453, requiring schedule of preferred debts to be filed within five days after “registration” of deed of assignment for creditors, time for filing schedule commences to run from date of filing deed for registration, irrespective of the actual registration.
Summary
Civil action, to-declare void a deed of assignment made by the Sneed Furniture Company to the defendant, Joe Jacobs, trustee, upon the ground of fraud, etc., tried before Bryan, J., and a jury, at May Term, 1S95, of Eoestth Superior Court. There was a verdict for the plaintiff and from the judgment thereon the defendant appealed. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of Associate Justice ClaeK.

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

Opinion of the Court — Clark

Clark, J.:

As was said in Bank v. Gilmer, 116 N. C., 684, 707 , “Chapter 453, Acts 1893, is not a mere recommendation from the legislature to insolvents as to the form *428 of assignments and proceedings thereunder, but in its very nature the Act is imperative. If not complied with by the asssignor by filing schedule as required, the assignment is invalid.” This has been cited and approved in Frank v. Heiner, and Bank v. Gilmer, both at this Term. These decisions are sustained by the great weight of authority in other States, the numerous cases being cited in the excellent brief filed by the plaintiff’s counsel. The statute being mandatory it is necessarily so as to time.

Mather v. McMillian, 60 Wis., 546 , is in point, in which the deed of assignment was held invalid because recorded one day too late. Familiar instances are our own eases in which the service of notices of appeal and cases on appeal, and the like, has been held invalid when not made within the prescribed time.

Wade v. City of Newbern, 72 N. C., 498 ;

Taylor v. Brower, 78 N. C., 8 ;

Adams v. Reaves, 74 N. C., 106 . The deed of assignment was filed for registration on the 6th of January, 1894. The schedule of preferred debts which is required to be filed within five days after the registration, was not filed till the 12th of January, 1894. “Excluding the first day and including the last” the mode of computation prescribed by The Code, Sec. 596, this was not in time. That section excludes Sunday only when it is the last day of the time limited, so the case would not come within the decision in Barcroft v. Roberts, 92 N. C., 249 . If The Code, Sec. 596, applies, as it seems, only to times limited for the services, &c., prescribed by The Code of Civil Procedure, then Sunday, even if it had been the last day would not have been excluded in the computation.

Branch v. Railroad, 77 N. C., 347 ;

Keeter v. Railroad, 86 N. C., 346 . Nor does it aid the defendant that the register of deeds in point of fact did not register the instrument till the 8th of January, for the filing for registration is in law the registration, and all *429 rights and liabilities accrue from the date of filing and do not depend upon tlie greater or less diligence of the register in performing liis duty.

McKinnon v. McLean, 19 N. C., 79 ;

Motts v. Bright, 20 N. C., 258 ;

Parker v. Scott, 64 N. C., 118 ;

Davis v. Whitaker, 114 N. C., 279 .

No Error.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1898: 11900: 31910: 11918: 21921: 11924: 11926: 11949: 118982026peak 1900 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bailey v. Davis55 S.E.2d 919 (N.C. 1949)
  2. Blacknall v. Hancock109 S.E. 72 (N.C. 1921)
  3. Carolina-Tennessee Power Co. v. Hiawassee River Power Co.175 N.C. 668 (1918)
  4. Powell Bros. v. McMullan Lumber Co.68 S.E. 926 (N.C. 1910)
  5. Wilkinson v. Wallace134 S.E. 401 (N.C. 1926)
  6. Power Co. v. Power Co.96 S.E. 99 (N.C. 1918)

Most recent

  1. Bailey v. Davis55 S.E.2d 919 (N.C. 1949)
  2. Wilkinson v. Wallace134 S.E. 401 (N.C. 1926)
  3. Farmers Banking & Trust Co. v. Tarboro Leaf Tobacco Co.124 S.E. 158 (N.C. 1924)
  4. Blacknall v. Hancock109 S.E. 72 (N.C. 1921)
  5. Power Co. v. Power Co.96 S.E. 99 (N.C. 1918)
  6. Carolina-Tennessee Power Co. v. Hiawassee River Power Co.175 N.C. 668 (1918)

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 9

DepthCaseCited by
Branch v. Wilmington & Weldon R.R., 77 N.C. 347 (1877) 33
Nat'l Bank of Greensboro v. Gilmer, 116 N.C. 684 (1895) 21
Keeter v. Wilmington & Weldon R.R., 86 N.C. 346 (1882) 19
Davis v. Whitaker, 19 S.E. 699 (N.C. 1894) 15
Wade v. City of Newbern, 72 N.C. 498 (1875) 15
Barcroft Co. v. Roberts Co., 92 N.C. 249 (1885) 11
Parker v. Scott, 64 N.C. 118 (1870) 5
Mather v. McMillan, 19 N.W. 440 (Wis. 1884) 5
Taylor v. Brower, 78 N.C. 8 (1878) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list