The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-03-02
DIGEST OF THE WEEKS
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
HORNTEIAI4L rs. COMMISSION
ERS Error

| Where an act or Assembly provides Z
| specific fund by taxation for working the
public reads Of a county, the work to
| be let by contract to the lowest bidder
and the amount for which the work is
| contracted to be done exceeds the
amount of the special tax levy, the COM
| missioners are not authorized TO levy
an additional tax TO meet the unpaid
| balance due the contractor for the work
| done or to pay the same from the gen
eral tax fund of the county.
DRAPER VS.. BRADLEY. Affirmed.
| In this State an heir of a deceased
| collateral relative of the person seized
| stands in his ancestors place and will
| take what the ancestor would have TAX
en- if living. Clement VS.. Cauble. % \.
! G. 81; Cromartie VS.. Kemp. &c \. c.
$50
SHANNON VS.. LAMB. Reversed.
Where property is conveyed to a trus-
| tee for the sole and separate use of a
married woman, she has no power of dis
position over it, except such as is clear
| ly given in the instrument creating the
trust Monroe VS.. Trenholm, 112 y. G..
| ga and ia n. c. 500; Broughton VS..
| Lane. 113 n G. 10: Kirby VS.. Boyette,
116 N. &c. PA; Hardy vs. Holley, 81
! \. c. 661
! A tenant in common is presumed to
| hold for his co-tenant and although he
may claim under a deed purporting TO
| convey the entire estate, possession un-
der it will not defeat the co-tenant un-
| der 20 years. Covington vs.. Stewart. II
n. G. 14S; Caldwell VS.. Nicely, 81 \. c..
ia; Ward VS.. Farmer. 90 n. G. 93;
Hicks VS.. Bullock. 96 n. c. 1854; Bree-
| den VS.. McLaurin 9S n. c.. 3O7; Hamp-
ton VS.. Wheeler, 90 n. c. ODD; Rascoe
VS.. Lumber Co., 124 n. c. ~.
| JENNINGS VS.. HINTON. New trial.
| A husbands signature as witness TO
an assignment by the wife of her inter-
est in an insurance policy upon the life
| of the husband is sufficient comph-
ancc with Article Y, section + of the
| Constitution, requiring the husband S
written assent to the disposition of
her property in the policy.
| MITCHELL VS.. EURE. Affirmed
| The law will scrutinize the transac-
! ton of an insolvent debtor with his near
relation and where an insoivent conveys
| to his father the burden is upon him to
disprove fraud.
When a debtor, intending TO perpetuate
a fraud. makes voluntary assignment,
the deed is void although the fraud was
unknown to the beneficiary and the
| trustees. and was not participated in by
them. 90 \. c. 493.
CANNON VS.. JOHNSON. Appeal dis
| missed.
! The defendants mortgage upon his
| land had been assigned TO the plaintiff
and the plaintiff had the land sold under
| foreclosure proceeding. with right to
| bid at the sale, and purchased the same.
| Before confirmation of sale the admin
| istrator of a Judgment creditor Of the
| defendant mortgagor, petitioned the
| court To he made a party to the pro-
| .eedinS and for an account of the rents
and profits arising from the land since
| it came into the plaintiffs possession.
| The court ordered that the Judgment
| creditor he made party as prayed and
| that $3.50 Of the purchase price Of the
/ land be Paid into court and retained I'M
| til further order and that IAN issue be
submitted to Il jury to find the amount
of timber and wood taken from the land
| by plaintiff since Judgment in foreclos-
| ure,' etc, and that the sale be con-
| irrned. The plaintiff appealed from the
| Judgment for that the administrator of
the Judgment creditor was not entitled
to be made party to this action and
for refusal of the. court TO render final
| Judgment
Held that the appeal was premature
| and must be dismissed. The plaintiff
| should have entered his exception to the
| interlocutoTy order and appealed only
from the final judgment.
| The lien of a docketed Judgment is
| in the nature of a statutory mortga &c
| and the Judgment creditor of the mort
gagor is a proper party to the proceed
ing to foreclose the mortgage.
| COMMISSIONERS OF VANCE
| COUNTY VS.. GILL. Appeal dis
| missed.
The court will not decide an action
| when the merits of the controversy have
ceased to exist pending the appeal.
| The judgment appealed from is pre-
sumed to be correct until reversed and
unless the judgment below is reversed
npon the merits this court cannot tax
the costs against the appellee. Code
)25, 527 and $40.
GOODE VS.. ROGERS. Appeal dis
missed.
Final decree for partition was filed IN
1876. chargingecertain lots with the pay
ment of owelty. In 1899 petitioners
moved, upon notice, for execution to is
size for collection of owelty. The re-
spondents answered, pleading payment
and the Statute of Limitation. Upon
appeal to the Superior Court the trial
Judge being of opinion that the record
md pleadings raised issues of fact and
not questions of fact, ordered jury
trial. from which order petitioners ap-
Dealed: Held that the pleadings raised
ssues of fact and the appeal, being pre-
nature, is dismissed.
LOFTIN VS.. COBB. Affirmed.
| Evidence which is competent against
the guardian is also competent as pre-
sumptive evidence against his bondsmen
Code section 1915.
Where an administrator Of former
guardian is also appointed guardian in
his intestate's stead. he is chargeable. as
guardian, with funds belonging to the
ward. which should come into his hands
rs administrator of the former guardian
| When ward has different remedies