Case ID: nc_124/html/0402-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Douglas, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HALL & PEARSALL v. A. J. COTTINGHAM and G. B. PATTERSON.
    (Decided April 11, 1899).
    
      Assignment — Schedule—Preferred Debts.
    
    1. A schedule of preferred debts, properly verified and filed within the five days limited by law, is good as to all preferences therein sufficiently described, and if any such preferences are valid, the schedule itself is sufficient to support the assignment. Brown v. Nimoclcs at this term.
    2. Debts invalid for want of proper description are simply eliminated from the schedule and fall back into the class of unpreferred debts. While the requirements as to name of the creditor, amount, date and consideration of his debt are mandatory, they will be reasonably construed in carrying out the law. Preference as to taxes is valid, as it does not come within the intent of the law.
    Civil, ActiON to vacate an assignment and for injunction and receiver, beard before Robinson, J., at February Term, 1899, of the Superior Court of Robeson County.
    The deed of assignment was made by defendant Ootting-ham to defendant Patterson, assignee, and contained preferences. The schedule was verified and filed in apt time, but was alleged by the complaint to be defective on account of the insufficient description of some of the debts secured, and the point was made, if some of the debts preferred were insufficiently described, it vitiated the whole — so far as preference was concerned.
    His Honor, upon the hearing, dissolved the restraining order temporarily issued, and declined the application for injunction and receiver. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.
    
      Messrs. McLean & McLean, for plaintiff (appellant).
    
      Messrs. Patterson & McLean, for defendants.
   Douglas, J.

This is an action brought to set aside a deed of assignment, executed on tbe 1st day of November, 1897, by tbe defendant Cottingbam to bis co-defendant Patterson as trustee, and for injunction and receiver. Tbe assignment provided for certain preferences wbicb were set out in tbe schedule filed by tbe assignor in tbe office of tbe Clerk of tbe Superior Court on tbe 5th day of November, 1897, within tbe five days prescribed by the statute. On January 18, 1899, a temporary injunction or restraining order was issued by bis Honor Judge Eobinson, but on tbe hearing at February Term of Eobeson Superior Court judgment was rendered dissolving the temporary restraining order theretofore granted and refusing tbe motion for receiver and injunction.

There appears to be no dispute as to tbe facts, and tbe only question argued by counsel was as to tbe sufficiency of tbe schedule of preferred debts, and tbe effect thereon of tbe invalidity of certain preferences. These questions have been fully considered in tbe case of Brown v. Nimocks at this term, and tbe principles therein laid down govern tbe case at bar. We are of tbe opinion that a schedule of preferred debts, properly verified and filed within tbe five days limited by law, is good as to all preferences therein sufficiently described, and that, if any of such preferences are valid, tbe schedule itself is sufficient to support tbe assignment.. Those debts invalid for want of proper description are simply eliminated from tbe schedule and fall back into tbe class of unpreferred debts. They lose nothing of their previous character as debts, but acquire no preference whatever under tbe assignment.

It remains for us only to classify tbe preferences in tbe schedule before us. Such a preference to be' valid must set forth tbe name of tbe creditor, with tbe amount, date and consideration of bis debt. All of these requirements are mandatory, but they will be reasonably construed in carrying out the true intent and spirit of the law. We think that the preference as to taxes is valid, as it does not come within the intent of the law. Any creditor can easily ascertain their amount and all particulars connected therewith by reference to a public record> and it would be difficult ever to bring public taxes under the head of feigned or collusive debts. We think that the second preference is also good, which is as follows: “J. A. Eddie, $206; note dated June 16, 1897, due and payable December 16, 1897, being amount due for material for dry kiln.” We hold that in the absence of any statement to the contrary the date of the note is presumed to be the date of the transaction, not as an arbitrary rule of law, but because we think the ordinary business man would-so regard it and we would feel that he had complied with the law by giving the date of the note when the entire transaction took place at the same time. The object of the statute is not to defeat preferences, but to regulate them by requiring the assignor to file in a public office, accessible to all, under the sanctity of his oath, a statement giving such a description of the preferred debt as will enable any creditor to conveniently ascertain its bona, fides. Neither the schedule nor the deed itself adds anything to the inherent honesty or dishonesty of a debt, but affects only its order of payment. Neither is conclusive of its validity, which can be attacked by any interested party, and, if shown to be feigned or illegal, it would have neither preference nor existence. If properly set out in the schedule, it has only a prima facie right of preference, subject to attack; but if excluded from the schedule, either in fact or by implication of law, its preference is forever lost. There are several preferences which appear to us sufficiently described, but we have shown enough to sustain the schedule and therefore the assignment.

As the judgment of the Court below simply dissolved the restraining order theretofore granted, and taxed the plaintiffs with the costs of the action, the question of the validity or invalidity of each particular item of the schedule is not properly before us.

As the schedule is good, at least in part, it is sufficient to support the assignment, and his Honor properly refused to interfere in its execution. The judgment is affirmed.