{
  "id": 8690489,
  "name": "WILLIAM SPOON and others v. GEORGE W. REID and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "Spoon v. Reid",
  "decision_date": "1878-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "244",
  "last_page": "246",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "78 N.C. 244"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 241,
    "char_count": 3664,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.437,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.4460720235151647e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9212963767385666
    },
    "sha256": "2c4757ffd40ad9241d335ea1094378e75f6ad00af9058628f491b90e732c9bfe",
    "simhash": "1:30876dae03d6ecb1",
    "word_count": 657
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:04:18.240606+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WILLIAM SPOON and others v. GEORGE W. REID and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\n(After stating the case as above.) The statement shows that he ought not to have it, yet the homestead law has so much favor, that the grossest frauds are practiced in its name without shame.\nWithout affecting the conclusion at which we have arrived, it may be conceded that he had never conveyed his home place in fraud, nor at all, but that he owned it and lived upon it at the time of the levy and sale, and yet he \u2022could not recover; for when the allotment was made to him in the other two tracts by the Sheriff\u2019s appraisers, and he took no exception thereto and no appeal'therefrom, and disclaimed title to the home place and claimed no homestead therein, he assented to and was bound by the allotment; and the same is an estoppel of record against him. \u2019 He has his homestead regularly'allotted to him ; and having that, h.e cannot claim another. Let him not trifle with the law.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s claim is founded upon the idea, that an .allotment of homestead which does not embrace the home place or house in which he lived, is a nullity, and that therefore he is not estopped by the allotment in this case. But that is not so. Surely'the Sheriff is not obliged to lay off to a defendant the house in which he lives, if it is not his property. Nor is it proper for him to do it if the defendant disclaims property, although he might not be bound by his .disclaimer, and might subsequently claim it. So the Constitution provides that \u201c in lieu of \u201d the dwelling, \u201c any lot', in a city, town or village, at the option of the owner,\u201d may he allotted. And when he disclaims title to the dwelling: and his homestead is laid off in the only land that he does-claim, and he makes no exception thereto, then it is \u201c in lieu of the dwelling \u201d and is \u201c at his option,\u201d tacitly if not. avowedly manifested. A defendant is entitled to have his dwelling allotted to him if he desires it, but if he does not \u25a0 want it, then it is a favor to him to have it allotted elsewhere.\nError.\nPer Curiam. Venire de novo~",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. J. A. Gilmer, for plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. A. W. Toupgee and J. N. Staples, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILLIAM SPOON and others v. GEORGE W. REID and others.\nHomestead \u2014 Fraudulent Conveyance \u2014Practice\u2014Allotment of Homestead.\n1. Where a debtor had conveyed the tract o \u00a3 land upon which he lived-in fraud of creditors, and afterwards the Sheriff set apart to him under execution two other tracts of land as a homestead and sold the home tract, and the purchaser acquired possession thereof ; Held in an action by the debtor to recover possession of the Rome tract as a homestead, that he was not entitled to recover.\nNor would he have been entitled to recover if the home tract had not been fraudulently conveyed or conveyed at all.\n2. An allotment of homestead under execution, without exception or appeal by the debtor, is an estoppel of record against him.\nCivil Action for Possession of Land, tried at Spring. \u25a0Term, 1817, of Randolph Superior Court, before Cox, J.\nThe plaintiff owned a tract of land on which he lived,, and two other small tracts not connected therewith. He-conveyed the tract on which he lived to his daughter to defraud his \u00ab\u2019editors. A creditor sued him, got judgment, the Sheriff had his homestead laid off in the two small -tracts, levied on the home tract as excess over the homestead,. sold the same, and title from the sale .came to the defendant, who sued the plaintiff and recovered possession. The plaintiff brings this action to recover the home place upon the ground that he is entitled to a homestead therein.\nUnder the instructions of the Court, the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs. Judgment. Appeal by defendants.\nMr. J. A. Gilmer, for plaintiff.\nMessrs. A. W. Toupgee and J. N. Staples, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0244-01",
  "first_page_order": 260,
  "last_page_order": 262
}