{
  "id": 11277721,
  "name": "DANIEL VALENTINE v. W. D. HOLLOMAN, Ex'r",
  "name_abbreviation": "Valentine v. Holloman",
  "decision_date": "1869-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "475",
  "last_page": "478",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. 475"
    }
  ],
  "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. 68",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev. Eq.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Dev.Eq. 358",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev. Eq.",
      "case_ids": [
        8691307
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/17/0358-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 350,
    "char_count": 5331,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.473,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8006090144795464e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7163799897214085
    },
    "sha256": "47df7727bb718b16f6e9c085169788536bab0ec3ede4c294684f24a65a0f1119",
    "simhash": "1:e927e4fe6d7d775f",
    "word_count": 937
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:48.011339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DANIEL VALENTINE v. W. D. HOLLOMAN, Ex\u2019r."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": ". Dick, J.\nThe plaintiff after the commencement of this suit, for a full and valuable consideration, assigned his claim to a purchaser. This assignment gave an equity to the purchaser in the chose in action sued upon, and authorized him to continue the suit in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff became a trustee of the purchaser, and his subsequent, bankruptcy did not affect the rights of the cestui que trust. The assignee in bankruptcy has no interest in the suit, and no'right to be substituted as plaintiff. The assignment in bankruptcy does not pass trust estates, but only such property as the bankrupt has an equitable as well as a legal title in, and which is applicable to the payment of his debts. Bankrupt Act, sec. 14, Eden on: Bank. 244.\nAs this suit was commenced before the adoption of the Code, the note offered in the defence can not be allowed as a counter claim. Teague v. James, ante 91, Gaither v. Gibson, Ib. 93. It can not be allowed as a set-off, as in a Court of law the right of set-off only exists as to mutual debts subsisting between the parties to the action. The endorsement, of the note to the testatrix of the defendant was void, as she was dead at the time and could not be a party to the contract of endorsement. The doctrine of equitable set-off, so much... insisted on in the defence, is not applicable to suits at law, and can be administered only in Courts of Equitable jurisdiction. Tbe Code bas now made ample provision for tbe adjustment of tbe equitable as well as tbe legal rights of parties to a civil action, but this case was an action . commenced and founded on a contract made prior to tbe ratification of tbe Code, and does not come witbin tbe operation of tbe new system of procedure. C. C. P. sec. 8,- sub. 4.\nTbe judgment of tbe Court below is reversed, and a venire, de novo awarded.\nLet this be certified &c.\nPer Curiam, Venire de novo.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": ". Dick, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Smith for the plaintiff,",
      "Yeates and Barnes, contra,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DANIEL VALENTINE v. W. D. HOLLOMAN, Ex\u2019r.\nWhere the plaintiff in a suit upon an account, assigned his interest, therein bonafid\u00e9fesidLfor value: Held, that he thereby became a trustee of such claim for the assignee, and that his subsequently becoming bankrupt, during the pendency of the suit, did not affect his rights-to recover as trustee.\nSuits pending at the time of the adoption of the Code of Oivil Procedure are not governed in practice by such Code; therefore any set off claimed by a defendant therein must be a legal one, and such as-could have been enforced in Courts of law heretofore.\nAn endorsement of a note to a deceased person, (made with intent-to invest such person\u2019s personal representative with the legal property therein) is a nullity.\n{Teague v. James ante 91. Gaither v. Gibson Ibid 98, cited ancE approved.)\nAssumpsit, tried before Pool, J., at Spring Term 1869 of the Superior Court of Hertford.\nThis action was commenced in the Court of Pleas'and Quar- ' for Sessions, and carried by appeal to the Superior Court. At Spring Term 1869, the defendant obtained leave to suggest \u00a1the Bankruptcy of the plaintiff, and to enter it as a Plea since last continuance; to this there was a replication, that the plaintiff held the claim in trust for another.\nIt was proved that the plaintiff furnished the goods and board declared on to Harriet Anderson, the testatrix of the \u2022defendant, at the prices alleged. After the institution of the suit the plaintiff assigned his account and claim to a party, for ia full and valuable consideration, and afterward filed a peti- ' tion in bankruptcy, was adjudged a bankrupt, and obtained .\u2022a final discharge.\nThere was exhibited in evidence, by the defendant, as a set-off or counter-claim, a bond executed by the plaintiff to one, .John Anderson, for an amount exceeding the plaintiff\u2019s claim* John Anderson died leaving a will and appointing the plaintiff and one J. A. Yann as Ms executors, who qualified and delivered the bond to the defendant\u2019s testatrix, (who was the widow of Anderson,) as part of her legacy under the will; and she held the bond when the debt to the plaintiff was contracted. Harriet Anderson thereafter died, .leaving a will and appointing the defendant her executor, who \u2022duly qualified as such. After her death and previous to the bringing of the suit, the executors of Anderson endorsed the bond to the testatrix.\nIt was insisted for the plaintiff,\n1. That the proceedings in bankruptcy were unavailing to arrest the proceedings in the Superior Court or defeat the action*\n2. That the claim sued on, after its assignment was held in trust only, and would not pass to the assignee in bankruptcy.\n3. That the attempted endorsement of the bond was void, and was not available to the defendant as a set-off or counter claim.\nHis Honor charged the jury that the effect of the proceedings in bankruptcy was to defeat the action, and, secondly, that under the present state of the law, the defendant\u2019s equitable interest in the bond, under the first delivery, could be used &s a set-off.\nYerdict for the defendant; Rule for anew trial; Rule discharged ; Judgment and appeal.\nSmith for the plaintiff,\ncited Bankrupt act. secs. 14,16, 21. Teague v. James, 63 N. C. R. 91. Gaither v. Gibson, lb. 93.\nYeates and Barnes, contra,\n1 Chitty, Plead. 24,15 East 622. March v. Thomas. 63 N. C. R. 87, IDev.Eq. 396, 2 Dev.Eq. 358, 6 Jon. Eq. 42., 2 Dev. Eq. 68."
  },
  "file_name": "0475-01",
  "first_page_order": 491,
  "last_page_order": 494
}