The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-11-15
Supreme Court Digest.
Reported by Jos. L. Seawell.)

lRepoIttu ny JUS. L. StdNcil.J
GREENLEAF, appellant, V PEOPLES
BANK OF BUFFALO. From Dare.
Error.
The sale of land under decree of the
United States Circuit Court is not such
a judicial proceeding as Will exempt q
non resident, who is interested IN the sale,
from service of civil process while in this
State for the sole purpose OF attending
the sale.
An attorney is exempt from service OF
civil process only when he is actually IN
attendance upon court in the course OF
his employment as attorney Therefore.
service upon q nonresident attorney at
his hotel while he was in this State in
attendance upon the United States Circuit
Court for the purpose of representing a
client. is held to be valid
TROLINGER, appellant, v. BoROUGHS.
From Randolph. Error.
A Register of Deeds must exercise the
duty of issuing a marriage license care
fully and conscientiously and not as a
mere matter of form. The reasonable IN
quiry" required of him by Section 1916 of
The Code involves at least an inquiry
some person known to the Register to be
responsible and trustworthy.
In the trial of an action TO recover the
penalty imposed by Section 1916 for issu
ing license for marriage to which there
was a lawful impediment, without max
ing due inquiry, it appeared that the ap-
plcant for the license and the person for
whom the license was intended were I'M
4 i,o hat
the northern part of the county II miles
from the court house and the register had
lived in the southern part of the county;
that the applicant swore that the age of
the girl was about 20 and the age OF the
man about "a, whereas the girl was in
fact only 13 years of age; that the appli-
cant named several persons whom the reg
ister knew TO be residents of the place
where the applicant said that he and the
parties desiring the license lived; that the
Register went to the office of the sheriff
and of the clerk to ascertain if they
knew the parties, but their offices were
closed, and none of the lawyers were in
their offices, and that the department of
the applicant was intelligent and gentle
manly and the Register was satisfied that
he was justified in issuing the license. it
quiry'' on the part of the Register.
BLAIR, appellant, V. JOHNSON. From
Warren. Error.
Action brought in the Superior Court
upon note of husband and wife in sub
stance as follows: ION demand we or
terest." ETC.. 1.-The full apd just sum of
10 ~
the principals in this note binds her own
separate estate for the payment of this
note-the aforesaid 1915 having been adj
vanced by aforesaid creditors for the
benefit of her said estate
At the time the suit was brought $1.063
was due on the note Held, "A. married
woman's engagement can only be enforced
in equity against her separate estate and
when otherwise expressly provided must
be in the Superior Court without regard
to the amount in controversy.
The feme defendant has sufficiently
charged her separate personal estate with
the Superior Court has jurisdiction to
enforce the charge; but not against her
real property as there was no privy ex-
approved.
In enforcement of contracts of married
women, the court follow the cases from
Pippen V. Wesson, "A N. C. 437. down to
Daugherty V. Sprinkle and other cases,
and say that the rule should not be chang
ed except by legislative enactment.
MURRAY, assignee, appellant, V. WILL
HANSON. From Alamance. No error.
L., the assignor of plaintiff was indebt-
ed to defendant in the sum of $40, and
sold and delivered to him his stock Of
goods with the understanding that an in
ventory was to be taken, and if the goods
were found to be of greater value than
the debt, the surplus was to be returned
to L.; and on the same day L. executed
deed of assignment for the benefit of
his creditors generally, and the plaintiff
assignee brought this suit to recover the
goods of defendant on the ground that
the bill of sale was security for the
debt. Notwithstanding it purported to be
bill of sale. and also that it was pro-
cured by undue influence. Upon the YER
dict, judgment was rendered for defend
ant Held. no error The value of the
goods as found by the jury was less than
the claim of defendant. aud the sale to
the defendant was good as between the
parties.
CLEGG. petitioner, V. SO. RAILWAY co.
From Iredell.
292, where the facts arc stated) Plaintiff
u IL 4 L. Toa