From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Foster v. Cook

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jun 1, 1821
8 N.C. 509 (N.C. 1821)

Opinion

June Term, 1821.

(IN EQUITY.)

A bill in equity may be framed in the alternative with a double aspect, and relief may be granted in either case, as circumstances may require; and relief may be given under the general prayer in a bill, provided it be in accordance with, and not contradictory to, the particular relief prayed for.

THIS was a bill, filed by the heirs of one Daniel Foster, to set aside a conveyance of land and a negro from said Foster to the defendant, which, as they alleged, was fraudulently obtained. From FRANKLIN. The prayer of the bill was to have the conveyance set aside and a decree for a reconveyance, and it concluded with the general prayer for relief.

The defendant, in his answer, denied the facts set forth in the bill, as to fraud in obtaining the conveyance; and the facts, on the responses of the jury to the issues submitted, appeared to be these: The defendant, as the confidential friend of Foster, undertook to assist him in the management of his business. While acting thus as his friend, he purchased, fairly and bona fide, of Foster, a tract of land and a slave. The land was of the value of $1,420 and the slave was worth $400. The consideration for the sale was $1,400 and the support of Foster during his life. Of the $1,400, the sum of $991 was paid, the balance remained due, and the support of Foster during his life was worth $420. On the facts defendant moved to dismiss the bill, on the ground that complainants' remedy was at law. The court refused to dismiss, and decreed that the defendant pay to complainant $515.46, the balance of the purchase money, with interest on $409, and all costs. Defendant appealed to this Court.

(510) Seawell for the complainants.

Ruffin, contra.


This bill is brought by the heirs of Daniel Foster to set aside as fraudulent the conveyance made by him of the land in question to the defendant, and for no other purpose; that is the prayer of the bill. It is true there is a general prayer, and under that general prayer relief may be given, provided it be in accordance with and not contradictory to the particular relief prayed for by the bill (5 Ves., 495; 3 Ves., 416; 2 Atk., 141); but that is not the case here. A bill may be framed in the alternative, with a double aspect, and relief may be granted in either case, as circumstances may require (6 Ves., 52); but that is not this case. The object of this bill is to have a decree for the land, but not for the money which may be owing for it, provided the sale to the defendant shall not be set aside.

But what is conclusive in this case is, that, if there is money due from the defendant, that money is due to the executors of Daniel Foster, and not to his heirs, and the executors are not parties. The decree made in the court below must be reversed and the bill dismissed, with costs.


Summaries of

Foster v. Cook

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jun 1, 1821
8 N.C. 509 (N.C. 1821)
Case details for

Foster v. Cook

Case Details

Full title:FOSTER et al. v. COOK

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Jun 1, 1821

Citations

8 N.C. 509 (N.C. 1821)

Citing Cases

O'Neill v. Cooper River Corp. et al

Mr. Augustine T. Smythe, on the same side, cites: As toconstruction of deed: 92 S.E. 271; 81 S.E. 1027; 81…