Case Name: L. R. WYATT et al v. WHEELER & WILSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY et al.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1895-02
Citations: 116 N.C. 271
Docket Number: 
Parties: L. R. WYATT et al v. WHEELER & WILSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 271–284

Head Matter:
L. R. WYATT et al v. WHEELER & WILSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY et al.
¡Statutes — Enactment—Ratification—Signatures of Presiding Officers Fraudulently Procured or Affixed Toy Mistake.
(For Syllabus see Carr v. Coke, ante.)
On tlie 14th of March, A. D. 1895, the plaintiff L. E. "Wyatt, executed to the plaintiffs. Job P. Wyatt and J. N. Holding, the deed of assignment attached to the complaint conveying the large real and personal estate embraced therein and making preference of certain creditors named therein.
Thereupon sundry creditors alleging said deed to be void under the “Act to Begulate Assignments and Other Like Conveyances in North Carolina,” purporting to have been passed by the last General Assembly of this State and to have been ratified on the 13th day of March, 1895, obtained judgments against the said L. E. Wyatt in Wake Superior . Court, and placed executions thereon in the hands of the Sheriff of Wake county, who levied the same upon the tangible property embraced in said deed of assignment and was proceeding to sell the same, when the said trustor and trustees in behalf of themselves and all the creditors of the said L. E. AVyatt who should come in and make themselves parties plaintiff and contribute to the costs and expense of this action instituted this action against the said judgment creditors, asking for an injunction against said sale and such other relief as they might be entitled to. An order was made requiring the defendants to show cause before His Honor Judge Starbuck, holding the April Term of the Superior Court of Wake Connty, why the injunction should not be granted and that the'defendants be restrained in the meanwhile.
The cause coming on to be heard at said term and having been fully argued, His Honor rendered the judgment dismissing this action and vacating the injunction. The plaintiffs excepted to said judgment in that—
1st. It adjudged that the validity of the act in question could not be impeached by evidence -of non compliance with the parliamentary requisites and forms of enactment.
2d. That the Court had no jurisdiction to hear such impeaching evidence.
3d. It adjudged that the action be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
4th. That the plaintiffs and their sureties pay the costs of the action.
5th. That the injunction be dissolved.
Plaintiff appealed.
Messrs. Strong c& Strong and J. N. Holding, for plaintiffs (appellants).
Messrs Argo <& Snow, for defendants.

Opinion:
Faikclott-i, C. J.:
Eor the reasons assigned in Carr v. Coke, at this Term, the judgment of the court below is sustained. Affirmed.