{
  "id": 8682435,
  "name": "FIDELIO SLUDER v. MINERVA ROGERS and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sluder v. Rogers",
  "decision_date": "1870-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "289",
  "last_page": "290",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 N.C. 289"
    }
  ],
  "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": "63 N. C., 437",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277624
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/63/0437-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 188,
    "char_count": 2541,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.384,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.35676751810626794
    },
    "sha256": "f9d1af378dc81c218d7acf4ebdbb76429927c07daf300d58badb5e00f2daff0f",
    "simhash": "1:7f7f6363a778e04b",
    "word_count": 439
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:28:35.890237+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FIDELIO SLUDER v. MINERVA ROGERS and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Beade, J.\nIt has been decided that the Homestead exemption is applicable to debts existing before the adoption of the constitution, debts not being a lien upon the debtor\u2019s property: Hill v. Kessler, 63 N. C., 437.\nAt this term it has been decided that the exemption is not applicable when the land had been levied on before the. adoption o\u00ed the constitution, the levy creating a lien &c. McKethan v. Terry, ante. In an application to me at Chambers a few days ago, in the case of Harshaw v. Henderson, in Bowan Superior Court, for an injunction to restrain a trustee from selling land to pay debts under a deed executed before the adoption of the constitution, I decided against the application, upon the ground that the conveyance was a lien to the amount of the debts secured, and that the Homestead exemption did not apply. In this I had the concurrence of my associate Justices of this Court, whom I consulted.\nThese cases seem to be decisive of the case before us. Upon the death of the father before the adoption of the Constitution, his lands descended to his children, his heirs, cum onere, \u2014 charged with the father\u2019s debts, to the extent of such debts after the personal property was exhausted. They had no power to sell it, and it was assets, which might be applied by the administrator: Bev. Code.\nThese heirs, minor children, are not entitled to a Homestead in the land descended to them from their father, as against their father\u2019s debts. They would be as againstjtheir own debts. So they would be as against their father\u2019s debts, if he had died after the adoption of the Constitution.\nThis will be certified.\nPeb Oubiam. Judgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Beade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Boyden and Bailey, for the appellant.",
      "Phillips & Merri/mon, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FIDELIO SLUDER v. MINERVA ROGERS and others.\nThe minor heirs of one who died before the adoption of the Constitution of 1868, are not entitled to the Homestead provided therein.\nNote. A conveyance in trust to pay debts, made before the adoption of the Constitution, gives to the creditors secured, a lien superior to the Homestead.\n{Hill v. Kessler, 63 NT. C. 437; MeKethan v. Terry, ante 25, and HarsJiaw v. Henderson, at Chambers, cited and approved.\nPetition by an administrator to sell lands, &c., heard by Hemy, J., at Pali Term 1869 of Buncombe Court.\nThe intestate died before 1866, and the defendants, who were minors, and his heirs, claimed that they were entitled to a Homestead in the lands to be sold, under the \u00a1Constitution.\nHis Honor gave judgment according to such claim, and the petitioner appealed.\nBoyden and Bailey, for the appellant.\nPhillips & Merri/mon, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0289-01",
  "first_page_order": 313,
  "last_page_order": 314
}