Case Name: JOHN L. HINTON v. B. F. WHITEHURST, Adm'r., and others
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1876-06
Citations: 75 N.C. 178
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHN L. HINTON v. B. F. WHITEHURST, Adm’r., and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 75
Pages: 178–179

Head Matter:
JOHN L. HINTON v. B. F. WHITEHURST, Adm’r., and others.
A creditor has the right to subject the land itself of his deceased debtor to the satisfaction of his debt, although there has been partition among the heirs. And one of the heirs cannot discharge his share of the land by offering to pay his part of the debt, or the amount at which it was assessed to him in the partition.
(See same case, 68 N. C. Rep., 816; VI N. C. Rep., 66; and 73 N. C Rep., 157.)
Civil Action, originally brought to subject land to the payment of debts, tried before Eure, J., at Spring Term, 1876, of PasquotANK Superior Court.
The facts of the case have been heretofore fully set out in the several reports thereof, to be found in the 68 N. C. Rep., 316; 71 N. C. Rep., 66; and 73 N. C. Rep., 157.
The judgment of this Court at June Term, 1875, being-sent down to the Court below, the presiding Judge proceeded in accordance with that judgment, to declare the rights of the parties and adjudge agreeably thereto.
From his judgment the defendant, W. T. Whitehurst, appealed. The points raised by defendant are stated in the opinion of the Court.
No counsel for appellant in this Court.
Smith & Strong, contra.

Opinion:
Reade, J.
This case has been heretofore twice before us, and the rights of the parties so fully declared that there is no necessity to consider them further. His Honor followed those cases, and of course there is no error.
A creditor has the right to subject the land itself of his deceased debtor to the satisfaction of his debt, although there has been partition among the heirs. And one of the heirs cannot discharge his share of the land by offering to pay Ms part of the debt; or the amount at which it was assessed to him in the partition. Nor will it make any difference that his share has increased in value, as in this case by the diminished burden of a life estate, unless by improvements, which he has made above the rents and profits; in which case, it may be, he would be allowed for the improvements to the extent that they increased the market value of the land.
There is no error. Hinton v. Whitehunt, Adm., 73 N. C. Rep., 157.
Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.