{
  "id": 2091743,
  "name": "DAVID R. BENNICK v. P. H. BENNICK and J. R STAMEY, Adm'r. &c.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bennick v. Bennick",
  "decision_date": "1866-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "45",
  "last_page": "46",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Phil. Eq. 45"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 N.C. 45"
    }
  ],
  "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": "4 Jones' Eq., 295",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones Eq.",
      "case_ids": [
        2082972
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/57/0295-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Jones' Eq., 295",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones Eq.",
      "case_ids": [
        2082972
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/57/0295-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 169,
    "char_count": 1772,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.433,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.35470639407934595
    },
    "sha256": "180971559dcaccdece79d55060074dfa33f8d4a31fec3a18ea5e057586affb5c",
    "simhash": "1:0210c53b3a24b69a",
    "word_count": 306
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:56:26.929259+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DAVID R. BENNICK v. P. H. BENNICK and J. R STAMEY, Adm\u2019r. &c."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Battle, - J.\nWe are unable to perceive any .ground upon which the demurrer in this case can be sustained. The bill alleges debts due the plaintiff, that they have been reduced to judgments, that executions of fi. fa. issued upon them have been returned, \u201c no goods and chattels, lands or tenements, tobe found,\u201d and that the defendant, P. H. Ben-nick, is insolvent, except as to the distributive share now in the hands of the defendant, Stamey. These allegations are admitted hy-the demurrer, and according to the eases of Hough v. Gress, 4 Jones Eq., 295, and Tabb v. Williams, Ibid, 352, they show that the plaintiff should have the relief which he .-seeks.\nThe demurrer must be overruled and the cause remanded, to the end that the defendants may answer the bill.\nPer Curiam.\nDemurrer overruled.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Battle, - J. Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bynum, for fhecomplainaiit.",
      "Logan, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DAVID R. BENNICK v. P. H. BENNICK and J. R STAMEY, Adm\u2019r. &c.\nWhere a creditor has exhausted legal remedies without avail, he may have the assistance of equity in subjecting to his claim the trust funds of his debtor \u2014 as, here, an interest in an estate in the hands of an administrator.\n(The cases, Hough v. Cress, 4 Jones\u2019 Eq., 295, and Tails v. Williams, Hid, 352, cited and approved.)\nOriginal Bill, to subject an interest in the bands of an administrator to the satisfaction of a claim of a creditor of one of the next-of-kin. It was filed to Fall Term, 1864, of the Court of Equity for Lincoln county, and the defendant, Bennick, demurred thereto; the other defendant filing neither answer nor demurrer, and no other proceedings being had in regard to him. The case was thereupon \u201c set for hearing, and sent to the Supreme Court by consent.\u201d\nThe course of the opinion renders no statement-of the facts necessary.\nBynum, for fhecomplainaiit.\nLogan, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0045-01",
  "first_page_order": 53,
  "last_page_order": 54
}