Note. — Vide 3 Black. Com. 442. 1 Term Rep. 26.
- v. Arrington, 2 N.C. 189, 1 Hayw. 189 (1795)
April 1795
·
North Carolina Superior Court
2 N.C. 189, 1 Hayw. 189
- v. Arrington et al.
T.he purchaser of a chose in action for a valuable consideration will be protected in Equity.
The bill stated in substance, that the negro in question was given by old Arrington, now deceased, to bis daughter, one of the Defendants, now married to another of tlie Defendants ; that she and her husband, for a valuable consideration paid to them by the Complainants, had by deed poll, assigned and transferred their interest in said negro to ihe Complainant ; that old Arrington, the father of the Defendants, had died, leaving Ihe Defendant, Arrington, his executor$ that he had gotten possession of the negro and detained him | that the Complainant, in the name of the feme and her husband, had brought detinue againt the Defendant, Arrington, to recover the negro ; and that tlie feme and her husband being indigent, and in insolvent circumstances, threatened to enter a retraxit in the suit at law. or to execute some writing to the Defendant, Arrington, that would operate at law as a discharge of tlie action. Tlie Defendants demurred to this bill ; and upon argument, (he Court said, this is a chose in action, purchased for a valuable consideration paid by the Complainant, and a Court of Equity will protect it. If the Defendant could procure a retraxit from the Plaintiffs at Law, or a release of the action from them, the Complainants, who carry on the suit in their own name, would be totally defeated. If the Court of Equity, who ought to protect this assignment, being for valuable consideration, would not interpose as prayed by the bill, the Complainant, as the bill states, would be defeated by a fraudulent contrivance between the vendors who have received value, and theDe-fendant who knows they have. This would be a fraud in the very face of the rules of a Court of Equity on the subject, of assignments. The Court, thei efore were of opinion, the bill was proper, and ought to he answered, and overruled the demurrer, and ordered the Defendants to answer accordingly.