{ "id": 11253693, "name": "JOSEPH H. WATTERS v. M. W. HEDGPETH and W. A. HEDGPETH", "name_abbreviation": "Watters v. Hedgpeth", "decision_date": "1916-10-25", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "310", "last_page": "315", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "172 N.C. 310" } ], "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": "42 L. R. A. (N. S.), 296", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.N.S.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "297" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "73 N. C., 293", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8690689 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/73/0293-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 N. C., 588", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 Ga., 387", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 420306 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga/118/0387-01" ] }, { "cite": "190 U. S., 294", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 8297029 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/190/0294-01" ] }, { "cite": "115 Ga., 722", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 413043, 412597 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga/115/0722-02", "/ga/115/0722-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 Ga., 811", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 417308, 417149 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga/116/0811-01", "/ga/116/0811-02" ] }, { "cite": "117 U. S., 617", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 8300174 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/117/0617-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 Neb., 385", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Neb.", "case_ids": [ 11273993 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/neb/66/0385-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 U. S., 205", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "171 N. C., 690", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "170 N. C., 107", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "157 N. C., 174", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "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": "102 N. C., 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "101 N. C., 564", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "117 N. C., 320", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653146 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/117/0320-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 N. C., 163", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659591 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/131/0163-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 N. C., 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656259 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/133/0071-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 654, "char_count": 14613, "ocr_confidence": 0.432, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3969980726564557e-07, "percentile": 0.6439562692651193 }, "sha256": "1d30eeed6f6585bd79ab1ba989a907c391ff0844deca6d0ea10efc74691cb2b0", "simhash": "1:8234db2beafe615f", "word_count": 2497 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:21:58.562423+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "JOSEPH H. WATTERS v. M. W. HEDGPETH and W. A. HEDGPETH." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Clark, C. J.\nThe lien of the judgment is not barred by the statute of limitations, which is suspended and does not run against the docketed judgment during the life of the homestead. Revisal, 685, subsec. 5; Revisal, 686; Farrar v. Harper, 133 N. C., 71; Wilson v. Lumber Co., 131 N. C., 163; Formeyduval v. Rockwell, 117 N. C., 320. \u201cEven if the original judgment had become dormant, the right to. enforce execution thereon upon the land subject to exemption arises on the termination of the homestead.\u201d Rogers v. Kimsey, 101 N. C., 564; Jones v. Britton, 102 N. C., 201.\nRevisal, 686, was enacted 6 February, 1905. The homestead in favor of the defendant M. W. Hedgpeth was allotted thereafter, on 31 May, 1905, and in favor of W. A. Hedgpeth on 12 April, 1906. On 20 November, 1913, W. A. Hedgpeth and his wife conveyed the homestead allotted to him. The homesteads having been allotted to the defendants after the adoption of Revisal, 686, they received same vested with the rights as defined in Revisal, 686; and when W. A. Hedgpeth sold and conveyed the same he parted with his exemption, and the land, theretofore protected from sale \u201cwhile occupied by him,\u201d by virtue of such exemption only, became subject to sale under the lien of the plaintiff\u2019s judgment. Sash Co. v. Parker, 153. N. C., 131. This has been cited as authority, Fulp v. Brown, 153 N. C., 533; Davenport v. Fleming, 154 N. C., 293; Rose v. Bryan, 157 N. C., 174; Dalrymple v. Cole, 170 N. C., 107; Brown v. Harding, 171 N. C., 690.\nThe acceptance of an offer must be in the terms in which it is made. The offer of the defendants to pay the plaintiff 10 per cent was not accepted, but a counter' offer was made to accept \u201c10 per cent net,\u201d which we understand t\u00f3 mean 10 per cent of the debt plus the full amount of the court costs, which had been paid by plaintiff. The plaintiff evidently meant to exact something more by requiring 10 per cent, net, else he would simply have accepted the defendants\u2019 offer. The defendants must have understood the plaintiff\u2019s counter offer as being something different, for they delayed acting on it until the plaintiff withdrew the proposition, as he had a right to do.\nNor is the plaintiff\u2019s lien barred by the discharge of the debt in bankruptcy.. \u201cNo title to exempt property passes to the trustee at all.\u201d Bankruptcy Act 1898, sec. 70 (a); 13 Eemington on Bankruptcy, sec. 1024, p. 572.\n\u201cThe discharge does not operate to cut off good and valid liens given or acquired for the debt, either a lien by contract or by legal proceedings, nor to prevent their enforcement. It is purely personal to the bankrupt.\u201d 2 Eemington Bankruptcy, sec. 2673, p. 1589. Congress cannot destroy the plaintiff\u2019s lien against the homestead by the Bankruptcy Act. Kener v. LaGrange Mills, 231 U. S., 205.\n\u201cIn actions to try title to property, or determine the validity of liens on property, or interest therein, where no recovery of a debt is sought, the defendant may not interpose his discharge in bankruptcy. The discharge bars debts, not ownership of property, whether such ownership be absolute, conditional, or by way of lien, whether it be ownership of the whole or merely partial ownership.\u201d 2 Eemington on Bankruptcy, see. 2668, p. 1587.\n\u201cThe discharge bars all future legal proceedings for the enforcement of the debt or obligation discharged, except such as are by way of enforcement of a lien therefor not in itself invalid; but does not affect suits to determine the ownership of property, or to enforce liens thereon.\u201d 2 Eemington on Bankruptcy, sec. 2668, p. 1588.\nA discharge in bankruptcy does not affect the lien of a creditor where the lien was created more than four months before the petition in bankruptcy was filed. \u201cThe effect of the discharge is personal-to the bankrupt, and does not affect any lawful lien, charge, or encumbrance existing on his property, but judgment may be specially entered thereon in rem. The bankruptcy law was carefully designed to save all liens against property from being affected by the discharge, and its terms seem ample for that purpose.\u201d Paxton v. Scott, 66 Neb., 385, citing Lowell on Bankruptcy, 314, 396, 397; Long v. Bullard, 117 U. S., 617.\nTo the same effect, Philmon v. Marshall, 116 Ga., 811; Smith v. Zachary, 115 Ga., 722; 1 Remington Bankruptcy, sec. 1032, p. 538; Lockwood v. Bank, 190 U. S., 294; Kener v. LaGrange Mills, 231 U. S., 205.\nUnder the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 the bankruptcy court is without authority or power to administer property set aside as exempt under the Constitution of this State. McKenney v. Chenney, 118 Ga., 387. And the authorities are numerous to that effect.\nWhen the defendants went into bankruptcy they could not take into it the reversion in their homestead, for it was practically the property of the plaintiff, certainly to the extent of his lien upon it. The defendant had no property therein, but merely an exemption from sale. Joyner v. Sugg, 132 N. C., 588, and cases cited; Revisal, 686. When the plaintiff proved his debt in bankruptcy, if he had received any dividend thereon (which he did not) it would have been applied to reduce the indebtedness for which he held a lien, unless he had an unsecured claim 'against the defendants, to which it should have been applied in preference. The bankruptcy court could, not discharge the lien on the property. If the defendants had moved in the bankruptcy court to sell the reversionary interest, this could not have been done except subject to plaintiff\u2019s lien, under our statute forbidding the sale of the reversionary interest, for \u201cthe bankruptcy court is bound by the construction put upon the exemption laws by the highest courts of the State.\u201d 1 Remington on Bankruptcy, sec. 1042, p. 593. \u201cNo title to exempt property passes to the trustee at all.\u201d Bankruptcy Act 1898, sec. 70 (a); 1 Remington on Bankruptcy, sec. 1024, p. 572, above cited.\nIn Blum v. Ellis, 73 N. C., 293, relied on by defendants, neither the lienor nor the bankrupt seems to have objected to'such sale, and the reversionary interest having been sold in bankruptcy without objection, as it seems, the Court held that while the bankrupt law did not divest a lien, when the property had been actually sold, it could not afterwards be subjected by the judgment creditor. The reasoning in that case would apply it only to property in custodia legis, which, could be sold and proceeds applied to discharge the mortgages and other liens, but not to homesteads, since our statute forbids the reversionary interest to be sold. In Blum v. Ellis it is frankly stated in the opinion that the authorities were in conflict. Though cited since, we think it is authority only in cases where, as just stated, the property, being in custodia legis, can be sold for application to the lien, and not to the reversion in the homestead, which cannot be sold. In the latest case citing Blum v. Ellis, this Court intimates as much, Laffoon v. Kerner, 138 N. C., at bottom of p. 287.\nIn this case the judgment creditor did not prove his lien in bankruptcy, and the reversionary interest was not sold, and remains unaffected by the bankruptcy proceedings. The trustee reported that there were \u201cno assets,\u201d and there was no decree or attempt to sell the reversion, on which the plaintiff had his lien. This lien not having been divested, the plaintiff was entitled upon the termination of the homestead exemption to bave tbe property subjected to payment of bis lien. If tbis termination bad occurred by tbe death of tbe homesteader, leaving no minor children, execution would issue, and under Eevisal, 686, it can in like manner be subjected when tbe exemption is terminated by a sale and transfer of tbe property by tbe homesteader. Tbe rever-sionary interest in tbis case has not been conveyed by any sale thereof under decree in bankruptcy, as in Blum v. Ellis, where it was actually sold and tbe purchaser reconveyed to tbe homesteader. In that case tbe creditor might bave appealed from tbe decree in bankruptcy, and, not having done so, was bound by such sale.\nMoreover, Blum v. Ellis was decided under tbe Bankrupt Act of 1867, and this case falls under tbe Bankrupt Act of 1898. One material .difference between the two is thus pointed out in the notes to Paper Co. v. Wheeler (N. D.), 42 L. R. A. (N. S.), at p. 293 : \u201cFrom tbe provisions of tbe various acts as above set out it follows, as has been almost universally held, that real property liens existing for a proper length of time before tbe adjudication in bankruptcy \u00e1re not affected by a discharge in such proceeding. Tbe act of 1841 expressly preserves such liens, and it is tbe universally accepted rule that a discharge in bankruptcy does not, under tbe later acts, affect any liens except those specially stricken down by tbe acts themselves. In this connection, however, it should be remembered that tbe act of 1867 expressly destroys, except as therein otherwise provided, liens where tbe debt or claim was proved in bankruptcy, and, therefore, that a lien would be preserved only where tbe debt or claim was not submitted to tbe bankruptcy court; but tbis provision was not preserved in tbe act of 1898, under which proof may be made without impairing tbe lien.\u201d\nIn 3 R. C. L., Bankruptcy, sec. 143, citing tbe above case and others, it is said: \u201cTbe setting apart of tbe homestead to a bankrupt and bis subsequent discharge in bankruptcy do not relieve tbe property from tbe operation of a mortgage lien thereon obtained before tbe bankruptcy; and tbe same has been held to be true as regards judgment liens,\u201d citing Paper Co. v. Wheeler, supra, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.), 296, 297.\nIn this case tbe defendant has no interest in tbe reversion except- by virtue of tbe allotment proceedings of tbe homestead, which bad no effect save to exempt it from sale, and tbis exemption having now ceased, execution should issue against tbe property. Eevisal, 686.\nTbe order to issue execution against tbe homestead of tbe other defendant, M. W. Hedgpeth, who has not conveyed bis homestead but still occupies it, was doubtless an inadvertence, and such execution should be recalled and set aside. As thus modified, tbe order of Stacy, J., is\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Clark, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "J. A. McNorton for plavntif.", "McIntyre, Lawrence & Proctor for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JOSEPH H. WATTERS v. M. W. HEDGPETH and W. A. HEDGPETH.\n(Filed 25 October, 1916.)\n1. Homestead \u2014 Conveyance\u2014Limitation of Actions \u2014 Judgments\u2014Executions.\nThe laying off of a homestead under a docketed judgment suspends the statute of limitations during the continuance of the homestead, and when it has been laid off since the enactment of the statute it is taken by the homesteader subject to its provisions, and upon conveyance thereof 'is subject to execution under the judgment. Revisal, sec. 686.\n2. Accord and Satisfaction \u2014 Conditional Acceptance \u2014 Contracts.\nThe acceptance of an offer of compromise must be in accordance with its terms to be binding between the parties, and where an offer is made by a debtor to pay 10 per cent of the amount of a judgment, an acceptance of \u201c10 per cent net\u201d implies a variance between the parties, and is held, in this case, not to be binding.\n3. Bankruptcy \u2014 Homestead\u2014Conveyances \u2014 Judgments \u2014 Executions \u2014 Statutes.\nTitle to exempt property does not pass to the trustee in bankruptcy, and -where the debtor\u2019s homestead has been laid off and the lien of a judgment has attached thereto more than four months before the filing of the petition in the bankrupt court,and the judgment creditor has proved his claim as unsecured and the homestead again laid off in proceedings in the bankrupt court, after the discharge of the bankrupt, the judgment creditor, under whose judgment the homestead was first laid off, may issue execution against the lands after the same has been conveyed by the homesteader. Revisal, sec. 686. Blum v. Ellis, 73 N. C., .293, cited and distinguished.\n4. Bankruptcy \u2014 Homestead\u2014Title\u2014Bankrupt's Property \u2014 Discharge.\nA judgment debtor has no property in a homestead laid off to him under a judgment, but merely an exemption from sale, and the land is practically the property of the judgment creditor, to the extent of his lien. Hence, a homestead laid off under our laws is not subject to the jurisdiction of the bankrupt court, and a lien of judgment thereon is not affected by the discharge of the bankrupt therein.\n5. Bankruptcy \u2014 Homestead\u2014State Decision.\nThe bankrupt court is bound by the construction put upon our exemption laws by the Supreme Court.\n6. Bankruptcy \u2014 Homestead\u2014Unsecured Claims \u2014 Judgments\u2014Credits.\nWhere a judgment creditor, holding a valid lien upon the debtor\u2019s homestead, laid off under his judgment, thereafter proves his claim as unsecured against his debtor in the bankrupt court, any sum he may receive under a distribution of the assets will he credited upon his judgment, and will reduce the amount thereof to that extent.\nAppeal by defendants from Stacy, J., at chambers in New HaNovek, 16 March, 1916:\nThis was a motion for leave to issue execution, heard upon agreed facts. The plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendants in 1902, and on execution issued the homesteads of defendants were allotted. In 1910 the defendants filed a petition in bankruptcy, in which proceeding the -plaintiff proved his judgment as an ordinary unsecured debt, not asserting any lien upon the allotted homesteads. In the bankruptcy proceeding'the homesteads of the defendants were again allotted, being the identical lands which had been allotted in the State court, and embracing all the lands owned by them. The trustee in bankruptcy made a return of no assets, and for this reason the reversionary interest in the homesteads was not sold in the bankruptcy proceedings. In 1911 the defendants received their discharge in bankruptcy, and thereafter one of the defendants, \"W. A. Hedgpeth, and his wife, sold and conveyed to one Surles the land which had been, allotted him as a homestead by tbe bankrupt court, the purchaser paying a part of the purchase money-in cash and Executing a mortgage upon the land to secure the balance. The other defendant, M. W. Hedgpeth, has not conveyed his homestead, but still occupies it.\nAfter the discharge in bankruptcy the defendants offered to pay plaintiff 10 per cent of the amount of the judgment in compromise of their liability, if any, thereunder. Plaintiff accepted this offer, provided the 10 per cent was \u201cnet to him\u201d; but before the defendants accepted this offer the plaintiff withdrew it.\nThe court ordered execution to issue against both defendants, and they excepted and appealed.\nJ. A. McNorton for plavntif.\nMcIntyre, Lawrence & Proctor for defendants." }, "file_name": "0310-01", "first_page_order": 376, "last_page_order": 381 }