{
  "id": 11275601,
  "name": "James Iredell et al. ex'rs. of Samuel Tredwell v. John Langston",
  "name_abbreviation": "Iredell v. Langston",
  "decision_date": "1830-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "392",
  "last_page": "395",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Dev. Eq. 392"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "16 N.C. 392"
    }
  ],
  "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": "1 Murph. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mur.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 497,
    "char_count": 7138,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.29,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.6209008990485177e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9264995758439971
    },
    "sha256": "5ae8f547d1c8236023b3205678c416c1d68de2fcb579207ed5493b4875ea1d51",
    "simhash": "1:0fd86f8c526895ed",
    "word_count": 1285
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:48:17.309620+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James Iredell et al. ex\u2019rs. of Samuel Tredwell v. John Langston."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Henderson, Chief-Justice,\nafter stating the proceeded as follows;.\nIt \u2022appears 'o us that the Plaintiffs have a very plain equity, it i;> nothing more than subjecting the funds of an insolvent csslni que trust, in the hands of his trustee, to the payment of ids debts. Nor does the case of Bishop v. Church, relie'1 on in the argument for the Defendant,touch the qrociion. There the assignees of the bankrupt did not hold Che estate in trust for the bankrupt, hut for his crediiors, of whom the Plaintiff was owe. It was not preterid.!, that, whatever money he wan entitled to receive, as his dividend of the bankrupt\u2019s estate, was in jeopardy, it was a mere attempt to induce a Court of Equity to set off debts at law, where the law afforded complete relief. The very basis of equity was wauling ; viz: the insolvency of his debtor. As the debt, which was due the bankrupt, was not going into the hands of the bankrupt, as here it is to John Gharrier\u2019s administrator, but into the hands of the assignees, who held intrust, not for him, but for his creditors. 'What, ver clear sum therefore belonged to John Charrier, \u00bba the hands of tin- Defendants, this Court will apply to the payment of tht Plaintiff\u2019s decree. An account must therefore be taken of the estates of the infants, ar il what debts are chargeable upon them, regardless of their dignity; for Charrier Could only claim the surplus, after all the debts are paid. As to the debts due from Charrier himself to the administrator, since he became administrator, I am inclined to tiunk that he will be entitled to retain. For l look upon them, as advances made upon the credit of the funds in his hands, rather than as debts. I feel more difficultly as to the debts which John Charrier owed to the ^administrator, contracted prior to that time. I doubt wh\u00e9ther a creditor can call the fund out of the hands of the trustee, without paying all the debts of the cestui que trust to the trustee. Whether this case presents a more favorable aspect for the Plaintiff, I cannot now say. Let an account be taken of the sums due upon the two decree | also of the estates of th\u00ab intestates, and .of their-debts } vi the debts due from John Charrkr to the r.\u00bfl-ministrator, and of the advances by the administrator to him, distinguish in-between those contracted or advanced\u00bb before end after administration upon the estates of Ms children was committed to the Defendant, if the parties wish, although I think it of no importance, the na-fare and dignify of the debts will he stated by the Master.\nIt was contended in argument, that if the subject mat-tor of this bill forms any ground of relief, it also afford-\u00a1erf matter of defence to the administrator\u2019s suit, by way of petition. For that petitions are on the Equity side \u00ab/ the Court quoad hoc. And the case, of Holding v. Holding was relied ok. That case is law. There the matter set forth in the bill was properly a defence, suo vigore, Xt was in opposition to the causa of action, and should have been made, wherever the action was brought, ft Was like payment, in a action on a bond, or any other discharge of the obligation. The ground, oh which this application is made, admits the demand, it does me5, resist the right of recovery. It only goes to exihiguisfo the debt when recovered, 5\u00bby means of a separate aim distinct demand, It is even stronger than the case of a set-off, for the demands are in different rights. But if fit was no stronger, a person is not obliged to set off ?\u00bb. debt. He may do so -, or lie may sue upon it. The cas\u00bb? of setting off one recovery against another is common iss Courts of Law. Here the Plaintiffs were obligee! to come into this Court, to show the real creditor in the petition. And besides, it is the case, of judgments is different Courts,\nPun Curiam.\n\u2014 Decree accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Henderson, Chief-Justice, Pun Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hogg, for the Plaintiffs.",
      "Kinney, fo- the Defendant,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James Iredell et al. ex\u2019rs. of Samuel Tredwell v. John Langston.\nFpom Chowan.\nS. C- by his with crave legacies to the children of J. C. The children died intestate, leaving their father the next of kin. The executor of S.-C. having ..otained a decree against j c. for a mortgage debt, died, and appointed the, Plaintiffs t\u00e9s executors, 3. C. died also \u25a0insolvent, leaving the debt unpeid ; and the Defendant having ad\u00ab ministered on the estates >*fthe children of J. C. upon a petition in \u2022the County Court, obta n, d a decree for their legacies \u00edo/a.n t the 'Plaintiffs, who, thereupon brought their bill to set off the decree in favor of th or testator against that for the legacies \u2014 alleging that there were no iFbts due from the estates of the children ot T. C, and that his estate was beneficMl'v entitl'd to the whole of tin. legacies. Held, that the Plaintiff?. were ent t'ed to the relief souiht, which was nothing more than subjecting the funds of an insolvent cestui que trust, in the h<nds of bis trustee, to the payment of bis debts.\nWhere the Plaintiff and Defendant have mutual judgments in different Courts, and the Defendant is insolvent, a set-off will be allowed in Equity.\n'The ease of Holding v. Holding (1 Murph. 1) approved by Hhjdx'R' son. < hief-Justice.\nThe Plaintiffs alleged that their testator was the exe-outor of Stephen Cabarrus \u2014 that John Charrier was a legatee of the said Cabarrus, and made large purchases at ** sale of his effects, to secure which, he executed two Sw\u00edifh to \u00edb-lv testator for gg,O\u00fcO ere:\u00bb \u2014 -s\u00ed!-.' Gabarras, |i>y hss \u25a0w\u00a1!5, also gave legacies lo John P, hulJ\u00fasUm Charrier, children <\u00bbf John Chmvier \u2014 MiM '.'\u00ab\u2022Ir Icotatcr, in his Siibiii.re. procured a decree of forccln'-eco upon a Huh .given by John Charrier. t\u00ed\u00bb sfcono Ust payment; of rlr* tn-v hoods of S -2.000. and a rale o\u00ed :'ii mortgaged proini-.i*v. h no made, under an order of >h\u00ab* '\u25a0 k of Equity- \u2014 tb.-st, after deducting costs atu\u00ed diurun-d., there remained d-ie of the original deist, after \u00a1icky vtt;;; to it the set prw of the sale, the sum of te> 6S4 i l \u2014 - John 38, and Jastim. Charrier died intestate, wMioih issue and an->\u2022\u00a14'- led. and not indebted, leaving their father, John Charrier, .surviving them, who after a arde died, intestate at ft insolvent \u2014 that the Defendant hud taken out letters of administration upon all their . si ties, and had recovered a judgment against the Plaintiff-, upon a petition in the Coi-nty Court, for the. sum <f 5^ 916 37, \u00a1he amount i-f lh-\u2019 legacies given to hut iute-st-des, John H, and Justina Charrier, by Cabarrus, of which the Plaintiffs paid -ill but a sum equal to 1 \u00bbei due them by lh\u00ab in\u2122 testare John Charrier, And the Phhitiffs prayed, that ilse dent slue them by John Charrier might, be set (iff against the residue of lue judgment, recovered against them by the Defendant.\nThe Defendant admitted all the allegations of the Plaintiff\u2019s bill$ but denied their equity, .averring, that the intratares. John B, and Justina Charrier owed lorn, the I) fondant, as did John Charrier, the father- \u2014 to w horn the Defendant had also made advances, after the death of his children.\nThe case was Sieard upon bill and answer.\nHogg, for the Plaintiffs.\nKinney, fo- the Defendant,\ncited Bishop v. Church {& Mk. 6di) Holding v. Holding (1 Murph. 1),"
  },
  "file_name": "0392-01",
  "first_page_order": 402,
  "last_page_order": 405
}