Let the injunction he continued till the hearing, and
Henderson, Judge, remarked, that the answers did not admit Complainants to be creditors as they alleged, and that as yet the Court had no testimony on that point.
Holliday v. Porter, 10 N.C. 198, 3 Hawks 198 (1824)
June 1824
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
10 N.C. 198, 3 Hawks 198
Holliday & others v. Porter & Brand.
IN EQUITY.
i From Greene. j
A bill charged that husband, before marriage, made to bis wife a bond, payable after his death, for £30,000, for the purpose of defrauding creditors, and that the administrator, by contrivance with the widow, was about to confess judgm* nt thereon, before the creditors could sue at law, and prayed an injunction and general relief; the answer admitted the existence of the bond for £ 30,000, as charged, that suit was brought thereon against the administrator, and denied all design to defraud creditors, and the Court sustained the injunction until the hearing.
The bill stated, that the Complainants were the executors of William HolJidayj and as such creditors, of one James Porter, who executed to the Complainants *199his obligation for the payment of §234 ; tiiat James Porter died intestate, and largely indebted, leaving his widow, one of the Defendants surviving him, and administration of liis estate was committed to Brand the other Defendant; and charged that the Defendants combining to. defraud the Creditors of Janies Porter, the administrator Brand refused to pay the debts of his intestate, protending that the assets were first liable to satisfy a bond given by James Porter to his wife, dated before marriage, and made payable to Iter after his death, for the sum of 830,000, and that such bond was more than sufficient to exhaust tiieassets: the bill further charged that the bond was ghenfor the sole purpose of defrauding creditors, that it was not proved or registered, and during the life time of James Porter, its existence was kept secret, while he was in possession of a handsome estate, the property of his wife prior to her marriage, and by means thereof obtained extensive credit: the bill further charged, that Brand, at the request of the widow, procured himself to bo appointed administrator, and intended at the ensuing term of Greene County Court, to permit a judgment to be entered against him in some summary way on said bond, in order to create thereby a lien on the assets in bis hands, in favour of the widow7, to the exclusion of the fair creditors of James Porter, who would be delayed in obtaining judgments on their claims, by the ordinary forms of law. The bill concluded with a prayer for an injunction and for general relief.
The widow7, in her answer, stated, that at the time of the treaty of marriage, between her and Porter, she was possessed of real and personal estate of large value, while Porter, possessed very little property; upon the treaty, Porter proposed to secure to ids intended wife her estate, but she, desirous of advancing Porter’s interest, and hating confidence in him, preferred that he should execute the bond mentioned in the bill, ami he *200accordingly did so. The answer admitted, that she had SU01^ ®1>an(^ 0,1 the bond, which was not proved or rc-corded, and the existence of which was not generally kn(>w(u
The answer of Brand, the other Defendant, stated, that suit was brought by the widow upon the bond, and he wai advised, that as representative of his intestate, he could not object to the bond, and that lie had not confessed judgment thereon, though he had since, on another claim which exhausted all the assets of James Porter.
Upon the coming in of the answers, a perpetual injunction was decreed with costs, whereupon Defendants appealed. And now the cause coining on in this Court, upon bill and answer,