{ "id": 8656778, "name": "CHARLES ROSE et al. v. D. T. BRYAN et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Rose v. Bryan", "decision_date": "1911-11-27", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "173", "last_page": "175", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "157 N.C. 173" } ], "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": [ { "cite": "153 N. C., 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271629 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/153/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 N. C., 293", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 N. C., 533", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "98 N. C., 190", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273839 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/98/0190-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 N. C., 405", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651151 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/94/0405-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 N. C., 162", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272909 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/92/0162-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 N. C., 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2083765 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/68/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 N. C., 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271629 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/153/0130-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 253, "char_count": 3513, "ocr_confidence": 0.449, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.5994618646963195e-07, "percentile": 0.6836049128732988 }, "sha256": "3fa7c15ce13800dc5086338fd6e01d2033aaf8c7f61488f57385eb96d52dea5f", "simhash": "1:b1fbec287333c4c1", "word_count": 612 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:03.195282+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "CHARLES ROSE et al. v. D. T. BRYAN et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Clark, 0. J.\nOn 7 November, 1908, the defendant 0. Sadler made an assignment of all his property, including this lot of land and dwelling-house, for the benefit of creditors, specifying therein that the trustee should reserve and set apart his homestead exemption in said lot. On 28 December, 1908, Sadler conveyed said lot to his wife without any consideration. Soon thereafter the plaintiffs docketed their judgments.\nThe court' set aside the conveyance to the wife as void in regard to the plaintiffs, but adjudged that the debtor, 0. Sadler, was entitled to have his homestead set apart in said lot. The plaintiffs excepted, and that presents the only point before us.\nSadler being insolvent, the deed of gift to his wife was fraudulent at law and void as to his creditors (Revisal, 961-963) ; but when the deed was set aside the judgment debtor was entitled to claim his homestead in the land conveyed. Crummen v. Bennett, 68 N. C., 494; Arnold v. Estis, 92 N. C., 162; Rankin v. Shaw, 94 N. C., 405; Dortch v. Benton, 98 N. C., 190. The land is still occupied by Sadler and he is a resident of the State, and hence entitled to his homestead. The court having declared the deed of gift to his wife void, he holds the title, as to these plaintiffs, as if no deed had been executed.\nRevisal, 686, applies only to the \u201callotted homestead,\u201d which it provides \u201cshall be exempt from levy so long as owned and occupied by the homesteader or by any one for him; but when conveyed by him in the mode authorized by the Constitution, Art. X, sec. 8, the exemption thereof ceases as to liens attaching prior to the conveyance. The homestead right being indestructible, the homesteader who has conveyed his allotted homestead can have another allotted, aiid as often as may be necessary.\u201d This section has no application to this case.\nThe plaintiffs rely also upon Sash Co. v. Parker, 153 N. C., 130. That also has no application. There a judgment having been docketed, the judgment debtor and his wife subsequently conveyed the land out of which the homestead might have been allotted, and the grantee took possession. The Court held that the judgment debtor, not \u201cowning and occupying\u201d the land, was not entitled to have a homestead allotted therein, and that it was subject to sale under the lien of the docketed judgment. This has been cited with approval, Fulp v. Brown, 153 N. C., 533; Davenport v. Fleming, 154 N. C., 293. The judgment debtor there having in a legal mode conveyed his interest in said land and given possession thereof, was no longer \u201cowner and occupier\u201d of said land, and therefore could not claim a homestead therein, and the purchaser had no right to claim the homestead of another man against the lien of a. judgment docketed against the property before he bought it.\nThe judgment below is\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Clark, 0. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Jacob Battle for plaintiffs.", "T. T. Thome for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CHARLES ROSE et al. v. D. T. BRYAN et al.\n(Filed 27 November, 1911.)\nHomestead \u2014 Ownership and Occupation \u2014 Deeds and Conveyances\u2014 Fraud.\nWhen- the owner of lands has had his deed thereto to his wife set aside by his creditors as fraud upon them (Revisal, secs. 961-963), and has continued in the occupation of the lands, he is still entitled to his homestead interest therein. Revisal, sec. 686, has no application. Sash Go. v. Pwrlcer, 153 N. C., 130, cited and distinguished.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Ward, J., at March Term, 1911, of Nash.\nThe facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court by Mr. Chief Justice Ciarle.\nJacob Battle for plaintiffs.\nT. T. Thome for defendants." }, "file_name": "0173-01", "first_page_order": 213, "last_page_order": 215 }