The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-01-19

viewable if there is any evidence to sup
port them.
The grounds for an attachment under
The Code have nothing to do with the
manner in which the property is acquired,
but eycl,:s: .e,v with the intent witA
which it is assigned. disposed of or secret
ed. 1t appears that the only property or
money that the defendant disposed of is
| that which he put up in lieu of bond and
that which he deposited to secure a bond
! in criminal prosecutions apparently in
stigated by the plaintiff, and the trial
| judge committed error in continuing the
attachment against this fund upon the
ground of fraudulent disposition thereof
by the defendant in depositing it for the
= purposes named: .-
! BIRD VS.. ,BRADBURN, New trial
! The general rule is that where there is
great deficiency in the amount of land
called for in a deed, the grantee is enti-
/ tied to a reduction in the price, provided
{ he bought the land upon the false repre-
sentation of the grantor that it contained
definite number of acres, notwithstand-
! ing the grantor's belief that it did contain
the number represented. But if the grant
or's representation did not induce the
grantee TO purchase and the grantee knew
/ that 1t did not contain the number or
acres represented by the grantor and the
grantee bou-ht the land as whole and
/ not b. the acre. he is not entitled to
reduction in the price agreed upon.
/ ROSEMAN VS.. ROSEMAN. Affirmed
In a proceeding before the clerk to have
a substituted trustee appointed under
will upon the refusal of the trustee named
to accept the trust, the proceeding was
dismissed r. the clerk for want of juris-
diction, and upon anpeal the matter was
| heard. by consent of the parties before
the judge and from his judgment appoint
I ing a new trustee, no appeal was taken.
i Afterwards upon notice. a motion was
made TO set aside the judgment upon the
! ground that the clerk had no jurisdiction
4 of the proceeding to appoint new trus-
tee except where the original trustee has
been named in a deed and that the judg
ment of the Superior Court Judge. though
not appealed from, was void. The motion
was refused and the movers appealed to
the Supreme court.
Held, that the Superior Court had au-
thority, under it's general equity juris-
diction, to appoint new trustee to pre-
vent the faiure of the t"uat even if the
proceeding was not begun by wit return
able to the Superior court. since, as the
proceeding was ~ consent aud no appeal
| was taken from the or1ar appointing a
new trustee, the effect WAS in appearance
generally by the parties.
Being a free trader affects the liabili-
| ty Of a married woman for the contracts
and does not affect the manner of service
of summons upon her But when a mar
ried woman has assented to a judgment
not involving a personal liability, if she
is a free trader, she cannot plead that she
| is not bound by such judgment when she
would be bound by a mere contract Nc
Leod VS.. Williams. 122 n. c. 451 dstin
-uished.
When summons has been served upon
minors by delivering a copoy to each of
! them personally and guardian ad litem
was regularly appointed and summons
served upon him and he filed answer, the
statutory requirement has been sufti-
GENTLY complied with
ARTHUR VS.. BROADWAY. Affirmed.
A party aggrieved must move to vacate
judgment before the rights of innocent
third parties have interviewed.
| In this action to set aside judgment in
foreclosure proceedings, it is not suggest
]
! decree of foreclosure was entered while
the mortgagor was living and this cut off
his legal title. There was nothing to
suggest that he died before the sale and
confirmation but the record was entirely
regularly Not only have the petitioners
slept upon their rights for 10 years but
! in 1888 they treated the sale as valid and
| Joined in an action to have the purchaser
| "A iudpR
found that the purchaser sold the land to
Granger, who bought for full value and
without notice CT any irregularity in the
confirmation of the sale. If the movers
had any interest in the realty they waiv-
ed their rights to set aside the judgment
of foreclosure for irregularity, by en-
deavoring to obtain title to themselves
as beneficiaries under the foreclosure sale.
FERRELL VS. BROADWAY Judgment
below affirmed.
| Under ruling in Arthur VS.. Broadway,
ante. the former decision in this case
| t126 N. c. 25S is overruled and the judg-
ment appealed from is affirmed
HANOVER NATIONAL BANK VS.. COOKE.
| No error.
The stockholders of the National Bank
of Asheville, having resolved to go into
voluntary liquidation authorized the con-
vevance OF I'll The assets of the bank
| to a trustee, and by an agreement signed
| by a large number of stockholders, en-
powered and directed the trustee to bor-
row sum not exceeding $4,000, 10 be
used in paying off the liabilities of the
/ bank The agreement provided in part
that I'VE, whose names are herto subscrib-
ed being shareholders" etc, each own
| ing . the number of shares as 80
appears on the books of said bank. do
! now, each for himself his executors. ad-
! ministrators and representatives, but not
| jointly, undertake and agree with each
other and with such persons or corpora
lions as 49,. shall lend 49,. the money
| which may be necessary to carry intn of