{
  "id": 8687018,
  "name": "THOMAS LEARY administrator, against ALEXANDER CHESHIRE individually, and as administrator of N. E. Beasley",
  "name_abbreviation": "Leary v. Cheshire",
  "decision_date": "1857-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "170",
  "last_page": "172",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Jones Eq. 170"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "56 N.C. 170"
    }
  ],
  "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": "2 Dev. Eq. 19",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev. Eq.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 277,
    "char_count": 3959,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.381,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4948606464228922e-07,
      "percentile": 0.663702208121014
    },
    "sha256": "dc5434f068ed0e51e1c2fa53fa49bb46d2b50f82cc157371a79148bed40aa88c",
    "simhash": "1:253ac47696d6fff0",
    "word_count": 675
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:28:26.900566+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THOMAS LEARY administrator, against ALEXANDER CHESHIRE individually, and as administrator of N. E. Beasley."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeaksoN, J..\nThe allegation of the defendant fhatlie holds \u25a0a j udgment against his intestate, besides that upon the guardian bond, is not supported bjr proofs, and must be put out of the case.\n\"We have, then, this question: A principal becomes insolvent, and his sureties are forced to pay the debt; one of them afterwards gets into his hands a fund belonging to the jn'inci-pal, and, upon his death, by taking out letters of administration, acquires .the right to retain the fund, can he claim the whole benefit, or must he share with his co-surety?\nAmong co-sureties, \u201c equality is equity.\u201d This is a well-settled principle, \u201cTf one surety, by any means, gets a fund belonging to the principal, he is not at liberty to take the entire benefit, but must share with his co-sureties; Barnes v. Pearson, 6 Ire. Eq. 482; Allison v. Davidson, 2 Dev. Eq. 19.\nPeR Curi\u00e1M, Report confirmed, and decree for the amount reported.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeaksoN, J.."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel appeared for the plaintiff in this Court.",
      "Heath and Iikies, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THOMAS LEARY administrator, against ALEXANDER CHESHIRE individually, and as administrator of N. E. Beasley.\nIf one surety, by any means, gets a fund belonging to the principal, he is not at liberty to take the entire benefit of it, but must share it with his co-surety.\nCause removed from the Court of Equity of Chowan County.\nAt August Term, 1836, of Chowan County Court, Nathl. J. Beasley became tbe guardian of bis daughter, Martha Elizabeth, who was a minor, and the defendant, and James Norcom, the plaintiff\u2019s intestate, became his sureties by executing a guardian bond jointly with him. Martha E. Beasly was entitled, at the time this guardianship was conferred, to the sum of one thousand dollars arising from the sale of her mother\u2019s land, her mother being dead, and she being the only child, and the saidN. E. Beasly was entitled, as tenant by the curtesy, to the interest on that sum during his life, that is, to sixty dollars per annum. The said Beasly received the said sum of one thousand dollars, due his ward. A few years after entering into the guardianship, Beasley became embarrassed in his business, and his sureties above mentioned, being apprehensive of loss on account of their suretyship, induced him to surrender the guardianshp of his daughter, and the defendant, Cheshire, was appointed in his stead, who entered into bond with plaintiff\u2019s intestate and another as his sureties.\nAt the instance of the defendant, a suit was brought in behalf of M. E. Beasley, on the guardian bond, against himself, the said Cheshire, and the plaintiff\u2019s intestate; a j udgment was rendered against them and a recovery had for the said sum of $1000, with costs, of which intestate paid, under execution, five hundred dollars and the costs of the suit, after which no execution issued on the judgment.\nBeasley died in 1851; the defendant administered on his estate. He was utterly insolvent, and had been so from shortly after surrendering the guardianship as above stated, and never repaid plaintiff any part of the amount paid for him.\nThe plaintiff insists that he is entitled to one half of the interest arising from the said sum of one thousand dollars during the life of N. E. Beasley, together with interest thereon, since the same came to the hands of the defendant, Cheshire.\nThe prayer is for an account, &c.\nThe defendant answered, admitting the above facts, but contending that he was entitled to hold the full benefit of the accumulations of interest due his testator. lie alleges further jn his answer, that his intestate, N. E. Beasley, was largely indebted to laim on .a judgment''obtained against liim in bis life-time, for which he was entitled to retain from assets in his hands, and that this sum would more than cover the amount in his hands, arising from the source designated.\nThere was replication to the answer, commissions, proofs, .and exhibits filed.\nThe cause was set-down for hearing, and sent to this Court.\nNo counsel appeared for the plaintiff in this Court.\nHeath and Iikies, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0170-01",
  "first_page_order": 178,
  "last_page_order": 180
}