Court Opinion

ID: 9812680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:45:19.991227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:52.470807
License: Public Domain

Clark, J.,
concurring: The note sued on was executed in this State. It was given in renewal of one executed in Virginia the consideration of which was a bet lost upon a horse race. It is held that against a judgment upon a note given since 1868, in renewal of one executed before that date, the debtor is entitled to claim his homestead. Wilson v. Patton, 87 N. C.. 318; Arnold v. Estis, 92 N. C., 162. These are cited and the *276reason given for them in Blanton v. Commissioners, 101 N. C., 532, “.because the creditor must enforce the contract sued on with the incidents attaching to it when it was made, under the then existing laws, ” i. e. laws existing at the time of the renewal. The same .rule is applicable as to laws existing at the place of renewal. The first note Was only evidence of the original contract, the new note is given in this State, but upon the original consideration, (Hyman v. Devereux, 63 N. C., 624) and when the attempt is made to enforce such new contract in our Courts, we are confronted with The Code, Section 2841, which provides that all debts and wagers are unlawful and all contracts on account of any money so bet or wagered are void. Of course no action can be maintained upon a contract whose consideration makes it void.