{
  "id": 11255207,
  "name": "C. D. TAYLOR, in Behalf of Himself and Other Creditors of A. E. HAYES, v. A. E. HAYES and Wife and F. M. and F. W. RICHARDS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. Hayes",
  "decision_date": "1916-12-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "663",
  "last_page": "666",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "172 N.C. 663"
    }
  ],
  "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": "146 N. C., 362",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 N. C., 412",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270047
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/147/0412-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 339,
    "char_count": 6256,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.451,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.109540082203867e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5703546809099681
    },
    "sha256": "81bf2ac782fc8a78bd9a8173e8994551970ec0b7516e8fab0e38e2cc6c081563",
    "simhash": "1:9b55bb4856b8865b",
    "word_count": 1084
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:21:58.562423+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. D. TAYLOR, in Behalf of Himself and Other Creditors of A. E. HAYES, v. A. E. HAYES and Wife and F. M. and F. W. RICHARDS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRowN, J.\nThis action, in the nature of a creditors\u2019 bill, is brought by the.creditors of A. E. Hayes to subject certain lots of land in the town of Banner Elk to the payment of certain debts of said Hayes. The complaint alleges that the lots were conveyed by said Hayes and wife to F. W. Richards for the use and benefit and in trust for R. M. Richards, the brother of the grantee, and that said deeds were-made for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding the creditors of the grantor Hayes.\nThe case was referred to a referee, who heard the cause and reported his findings of fact and conclusions of law. After due consideration the court, Lane, J., upon hearing the exceptions of defendants, adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law and rendered judgment condemning the lots to be sold for the payment of the debts according to priority.\nIt is contended in plaintiff\u2019s brief that the first five assignments of error are insufficient and do not comply with Rule 19, subdivision 2, and Rule 21 of this Court. This point seems to be well taken. Thompson v. R. R., 147 N. C., 412; Lee v. Baird, 146 N. C., 362.\nHowever, in our discretion, we have looked into those assignments and are of opinion that they are without merit and must be overruled. They relate to findings of fact made by the referee and adopted by the Court, and as there is sufficient evidence to support such findings, they are binding on us.\nThe sixth assignment of error relates to the refusal of the court to vacate the attachment levied upon the property. The referee finds that when the attachment was levied the debtor Hayes had left this State with no intention to return, that he was not a resident of this State,- but had removed to the State of Texas and thence to the State of \"Washington. There is abundant evidence to support such findings as made by the referee and adopted by the judge. As no homestead had been allotted to the debtor.Hayes at the time of the levy of the attachment and no judgments had been rendered and docketed against him constituting liens upon the land, he was not entitled to homestead, and being then a nonresident, the property could be subjected to the payment of his debts.\nThe remaining assignment of error, the seventh, is likewise without credit.\nThe findings of fact are that the lots were conveyed to F. W. Richards for the benefit of and in trust for E. 1\u00a3. Richards; that th'e conveyances were made with intent and purpose to hinder, delay, and defraud the creditors of ITayes. \u00a5e see nothing inconsistent in the referee\u2019s findings, and they appear to be supported by sufficient evidence. The conclusions of law naturally follow from the findings of fact.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRowN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lowe & Lowe for plaintiffs.",
      "T. L. Lowe and J. W. Bagland for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. D. TAYLOR, in Behalf of Himself and Other Creditors of A. E. HAYES, v. A. E. HAYES and Wife and F. M. and F. W. RICHARDS.\n(Filed 13 December, 1916.)\n1. Reference \u2014 Findings\u2014Evidence\u2014Appeal and Error.\nFindings of fact of a referee, supported by legal evidence and affirmed by tbe Superior Court judge, are not reviewable on appeal.\n2. Appeal and Error \u2014 Insufficient Assignments \u2014 Court\u2019s Discretion.\nTbe Supreme Court on appeal may consider, in its own discretion, assignments of error not set out in sufficient conformity witb Rules of Court, 19 (2) and 27.\n8. Appeal and Error \u2014 Reference\u2014Attachment\u2014Nonresidents\u2014Evidence.\nWhen levies in attachment are sought to he set aside on the ground that the debtor was not a nonresident of this State, as alleged, the findings of the referee that he was, at the time, a nonresident, having changed his place of residence to another State, supported by legal evidence and affirmed by the Superior Court, will not be disturbed on appeal.\n4. Attachments \u2014 Judgments\u2014Liens\u2014Homestead.\nWhere there are levies in attachment against the land of a debtor who had, prior to the time, become a nonresident of this State, and there has been no lien by judgment thereon entitling him to his homestead, the property may be subjected to the payment of his. debts.\n5. Reference \u2014 Contradictory Eindings.\nThe findings of the referee in this suit to set a deed aside as fraudulent against the grantor\u2019s creditors, with -his conclusions in plaintiffs favor, are held not to be contradictory, or inconsistent with the matters alleged-in the complaint.\nCivil actiow beard at July Term, 1916, of Avery, by Lane, J., upon report of referee and exceptions filed thereto by defendants. All of the exceptions were overruled and the report confirmed. _ Defendants excepted and, from judgment rendered, appealed, assigning error as follows:\n1. That bis Honor committed error in overruling defendants\u2019 exception No. 1.\n2. That bis Honor committed error in overruling defendants\u2019 exception No. 2.\n3. That bis Honor committed error in overruling defendants\u2019 exception No. 3.\n4. That bis Honor committed error in overruling defendants\u2019 exception No. 4.\n5. That bis Honor committed error in overruling defendants\u2019 exception No. 5.\n6. That bis Honor committed error in not sustaining defendants\u2019 motion to .set aside and vacate the order of attachment heretofore issued in this cause on the ground that the defendant A. E. Hayes was not at the time of levying of the attachment, is not now, a nonresident of the State, but that be was then, is now, a resident of said State, and especially when it appears from the record made at the bearing before the referee that the said defendant A. E. Hayes, in bis own proper person and through.bis counsel, moved to set aside and vacate said order of attachment on the ground above set forth, on which motion the referee made no ruling.\n7. The prayer for relief in the complaint of O. D. Taylor being in the alternative, the referee concludes as a matter of law that the two deeds executed by the defendants Hayes and wife to F. W. Richards are fraudulent and void, and at the same 'time concludes as a matter of law that F. W. Richards is a trustee for F. M. Richards, and his Honor committed error in overruling defendants\u2019 exception to the referee\u2019s tenth conclusion of law on the ground that such conclusion' is in plain terms inconsistent with the relief prayed, and contradictory.\nLowe & Lowe for plaintiffs.\nT. L. Lowe and J. W. Bagland for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0663-01",
  "first_page_order": 729,
  "last_page_order": 732
}