Opinion · Nclaw North Carolina

HINTON v. WHITEHURST, 75 N.C. 178 (1876)

JOHN L. HINTON v. B. F. WHITEHURST, Adm’r, Adm’x, & OTHERS., 75 N.C. 178 (N.C. 1876)

Type
Opinion
Court
Nclaw North Carolina
Jurisdiction
Nclaw
Date
1876-01-01
Topic
general

HINTON v. WHITEHURST, 75 N.C. 178 (1876) JOHN L. HINTON v. B. F.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed HINTON v. WHITEHURST, 75 N.C. 178 (1876). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

HINTONv. WHITEHURST,75 N.C. 178(1876)
JOHN L. HINTON v. B. F. WHITEHURST, ADMINISTRATOR, AND OTHERS.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
June Term, 1876.
Creditors — Heirs at Law.

A creditor has the right to subject the landitselfof his deceased debtor to the satisfaction of his debt, although there has been partition among the heirs. And one of the heirs cannot discharge his share of the land by offering to pay his part of the debt, or the amount at which it was assessed to him in the partition.
ACTION, originally brought to subject land to the payment of debts, tried beforeEure, J., at Spring Term, 1876, of PASQUOTANK.

The facts of the case have been heretofore fully set out in the several reports thereof, to be found in68 N.C. 316;71 N.C. 66;73 N.C. 157.Page 140

The judgment of this Court at June Term, 1875, being sent down to the court below, the presiding judge proceeded in accordance with that judgment to declare the rights of the parties and adjudged agreeably thereto.

From this judgment the defendant W. T. Whitehurst appealed. The points raised by defendant are stated in the opinion of the Court.
No counsel for appellant.

(179)Smith Strong, contra.
READE, J.
This case has been heretofore twice before us, and the rights of the parties so fully declared that there is no necessity to consider them further. His Honor followed those cases, and of course there is no error.

A creditor has the right to subject the landitselfof his deceased debtor to the satisfaction of his debt, although there has been partition among the heirs. And one of the heirs cannot discharge his share of the land by offering to payhis partof the debt; or the amount at which it was assessed to him in the partition. Nor will it make any difference that his share has increased in value, as in this case by the diminished burden of a life estate, unless by improvements which he has made above the rents and profits; in which case, it may be, he would be allowed for the improvements to the extent that they increased the market value of the land.Hinton v.Whitehurst,73 N.C. 157.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed.Cited: Lee v. Beaman,101 N.C. 299;Hooker v. Yellowley,128 N.C. 301.

(180)