Case Name: LITTLEBERRY E. STAINBACK v. ELIZABETH GEDDY, et al.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1837-06
Citations: 1 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 479
Docket Number: 
Parties: LITTLEBERRY E. STAINBACK v. ELIZABETH GEDDY, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
LITTLEBERRY E. STAINBACK v. ELIZABETH GEDDY, et al.
Matters of equitable defence against a judgment at law, cannot be set up to prevent the removal of an encumbrance, operating as an impediment to the satisfaction of it, but must be lirged by a bill seeking relief against it.
This suit, which was pending at the same time with the 'preceding one of Geddy v. Stainbach et al., was brought for the purpose of having a sale of certain mortgaged premises belonging to the plaintiff in that suit, to satisfy the judgment he had obtained upon the bond mentioned in that suit. The matters set forth in the bill in the preceding suit, were relied upon in the answer in this, as a bar to the ■ relief sought. The allegations and proofs were exactly-' the same in both suits, the preceding one being in fact, a’cross-bill to the present.
W. H. Haywood, for the plaintiff.
Badger and Devereuce;.for the defendants.

Opinion:
Ruffin, Chief Justice:
The' relief sought, is of course to every judgment creditor, as such, in. the way of whose satisfaction at law an encumbrance stands. He has a right to redeem, or to have the encumbrance satisfied ©ut of the property; and' it is no favour to him, but mere' /justice, to decree it for him in this court. It is not to be considered, therefore, that objections to' the relief can be made upon the ground of an equity against the judgment* by way of defences. The proper mode of taking benefit of such an equity, seems to be by a bill of the defendant at law- in this case, as the opinion of the Court is clear, and has been already expressed upon the merits in the other cause, it is enough to say, that for the reasons before given, the contracts, as written, are obligatory in this Court, as they are at law; and therefore that the plaintiff is' entitled to have satisfaction of his judgment. There must be a reference to the master, to ascertain the sum due to the plaintiff for principal, interest, and costs, upon the foot of his judgment; the sums due the creditors mentioned in the deeds of trust, and the present state of the trust fund; of what it consists, &c.
June, 1837.
Per CuRiam. Decree accordingly.