Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina
Duke v. . Markham
105 N.C. 138
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of North Carolina
- Jurisdiction
- North Carolina
- Date
- 1890-02-05
- Topic
- bankruptcy
Clakií, J.: The Code, § 685, provides that “ any conveyance of its property, whether absolutely or upon condition, in trust or by way of mortgage, executed by any corporation, shall be void and of no effect as to the creditors of said corporation existing prior to or at the time of the execution of said deed,” provided such creditors shall commence proceedings to enforce the claims against said corporation within sixty days after the registration of such conveyance. It is not controverted here that the defendant, as Sheriff, seized the property of the corporation under valid executions against it, which were already in his hands when the mortgage under which plaintiff claims was executed.' The statute is explicit, and the power of the Legislature to enact it is unquestioned. The argument ah ineonvenienti was *140 forcibly presented by the appellant’s counsel. That is a matter which addresses itself to the legislative department and not to the Courts. It is sufficient for us to say, “Ita scripia eat lex.” The Court below properly held the mortgage void as to executions in defendant’s hands.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Duke v. . Markham. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 6 opinions
The Code, § 685, provides that “ any conveyance of its property, whether absolutely or upon condition, in trust or by way of mortgage, executed by any corporation, shall be void and of no effect as to the creditors of said corporation existing prior to or at the time of the execution of said deed,” provided such creditors shall commence proceedings to enforce the claims against said corporation within sixty days after the registration of such conveyance. It is not controverted here that the defendant, as Sheriff, seized the property of the corporation under valid executions against it, which were already in his hands when the mortgage under which plaintiff claims was executed.' The statute is explicit, and the power of the Legislature to enact it is unquestioned. The argument ah ineonvenienti was *140 forcibly presented by the appellant’s counsel. That is a matter which addresses itself to the legislative department and not to the Courts. It is sufficient for us to say, “Ita scripia eat lex.” The Court below properly held the mortgage void as to executions in defendant’s hands.
Affirmed.