{
  "id": 11274057,
  "name": "JAMES A. LEAK et al. v. JOHN C. GAY et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Leak v. Gay",
  "decision_date": "1890-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "482",
  "last_page": "483",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "107 N.C. 482"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 2366,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.947487136851577e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31189887904661623
    },
    "sha256": "d650c3b4f3426ca5faef90f1dd8093202058a036280dd06aac997181296e8196",
    "simhash": "1:71aa34ada3eaa1dd",
    "word_count": 400
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:31:37.064200+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES A. LEAK et al. v. JOHN C. GAY et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Avery, J.:\nThis is an appeal by two of the judgment creditors, J. S. Spencer & Co. and B. F. & PI. C. Lowdermilk\u2014\n1. Because of the payment of the second mortgage out of the funds, proceeds of the sale of land, before their judgments, said judgments having been docketed before the registration of said mortgage.\n2. Because the $390.34, the present value of defendant\u2019s homestead, should have been applied to payment of the second mortgage, and the balance of the proceeds of the sale, after deducting the first mortgage and costs of suit, to the satisfaction of the judgments docketed prior to the registration of the second mortgage, according to their respective priorities \u2014 the dates of docketing.\nWe need only to add to what has been said in the discussion of the defendant\u2019s appeal that, though the act of 1876-77, as amended by the act of 1885, has been construed for the purpose of disposing of the excess over the homestead, as if the clause destroying the lien had never been inserted, the restoration of the lien, under the act of 1885, construed with section 3766 of The Code, does not affect the defendant\u2019s right to exoneration, nor his power to encumber his homestead by a conveyance executed in compliance with section 8, Art. 10 of the Constitution. The appellants cannot complain of the election of defendant Gay, whereby they receive what is, in contemplation of law, the present value of what they would receive after the right of exemption, according to the calculation as to the probabilities of life, shall cease. There is no error, and the judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Avery, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Little & Parsons (by brief) for plaintiffs.",
      "Messrs. C. W. Tillett and P. D. Walker, for Spencer.",
      "Mr. J. D. Shaw, for Lowdermilk."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES A. LEAK et al. v. JOHN C. GAY et al.\nHomestead \u2014 Present Value \u2014 Judgment Creditors \u2014 Exoneration \u2014 Constitution.\n1. The restoration of the lien of a judgment, under the Act of 1885, does not affect the judgment debtor\u2019s right to exoneration, or his power to encumber his homestead by a conveyance executed in compliance with section 8, Art. 10, of the Constitution.\n3. Judgment creditors cannot complain of the homesteader\u2019s election to take the present value of his homestead.\nAPPEAL OF JUDGMENT CREDITORS.\nThe facts are the same as in the other case, except the exceptions of the judgment creditors set out in the opinion.\nMessrs. Little & Parsons (by brief) for plaintiffs.\nMessrs. C. W. Tillett and P. D. Walker, for Spencer.\nMr. J. D. Shaw, for Lowdermilk."
  },
  "file_name": "0482-01",
  "first_page_order": 518,
  "last_page_order": 519
}