Opinion
December Term, 1849.
1. Where a contract is made in another State, it is to be governed by the laws of that State, and not by those of North Carolina.
2. Where A conveys property by a deed of trust for the payment of debts, and the debts are unsatisfied, the property is not subject to an attachment against A.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Law of GUILFORD, at Fall Term, 1849, Settle, J., presiding.
This was an action of trover brought by the plaintiff to recover the value of a negro man by the name of Harper.
The parties agreed upon the following statement of facts, and submitted them to the court: Prior to December, 1841, one Stafford Weatherly lived in the county of Guilford in this State, and owned the slave in controversy, with other property. In December, 1841, the said Weatherly moved from this State to the county of Carroll in the State of Virginia, and took the slave Harper with him, having previously contracted debts in this State which were unpaid at the time of his removal. The said Weatherly settled in Hillsville, Carroll County, where he contracted several debts; and, in order to secure the debts he had contracted, he executed a deed of trust, bearing date 19 July, 1845, to the plaintiff in this action, in which he conveyed, among other property, the slave in controversy. The deed of trust had no subscribing witness to it, but was duly acknowledged on the day of its execution before the Clerk of (296) Carroll County Court in Virginia, in his office, and duly recorded. Several of the bonds secured in the trust had not arrived at maturity at the time of executing the trust, under which it was provided that the trustee should act when the bonds fell due, if not paid off. The slave Harper remained with and in the possession of Weatherly until about 1 May, 1846, when he committed some alleged offense and ran away from Carroll County in Virginia, and returned to the county of Guilford in this State, where the defendant, who was then sheriff of the county of Guilford, seized the said slave and took him into possession, by virtue of an attachment issued in favor of Samuel McLintock against the said Stafford Weatherly, on 1 May, 1846, which attachment was founded on a debt contracted by said Weatherly previous to December, 1842, the time that the said Weatherly moved from the State. At the time the slave ran away from Virginia some of the debts secured under the trust had not fallen due. It is proven and admitted that, by the laws of Virginia, a subscribing witness to a bill of sale or deed conveying slaves is not necessary, and that the proof and registration of the trust deed are done agreeably to the laws of Virginia. It is further admitted that the debts secured under the trust are bona fide debts, and that the trust was honestly made. It is also admitted that the debt due Samuel McLintock, on which the attachment issued, was an honest, bona fide debt. If upon this statement of facts the court shall be of opinion with the plaintiff, judgment is to be entered against the defendant for the sum of $530, with costs of suit; but if the court shall be of opinion with the defendant, a nonsuit is to be entered.
Upon this case agreed it was considered by the court that the plaintiff have judgment against the defendant for the sum of $530 and his costs of suit. From this judgment the defendant appealed.
Morehead and Kerr for plaintiff. (297)
No counsel for defendant.
We see no reason to disturb the judgment below. At this time the defendant took possession of the slave, Harper, under the attachment; Stafford Weatherly had no interest in him which was liable to the process. When he removed from this State to Virginia, he took Harper with him, and, having contracted debts there, he conveyed him to a trustee to secure them. It is admitted in the case agreed that the debts so secured were honestly due, and that several of them had not arrived at maturity; and it is further agreed that the conveyance to the trustee was in good faith, and, by the laws of Virginia, a subscribing witness to a bill of sale or deed conveying slaves is not necessary; and that the proof and registration of the deed of trust are according to the laws of that State. If so, the legal title was in the trustee; the contract being made in Virginia is to be governed by the laws of that State, and not by those of North Carolina. Davis v. Coleman, 29 N.C. 424, where it was decided that, where a contract for a loan of money was made in Georgia, a note executed in this State to carry it into execution, reserving interest according to the laws of Georgia, was not usurious, if made in good faith. The legal estate being in the trustee, and many of the debts for which it was made being still outstanding, Weatherly had no such interest as was liable to attachment. Parkerson v. Massey, 27 N.C. 192; Pool v. Glover, 24 N.C. 120; Coffield v. Collins, 26 N.C. 486.
There is no error in the judgment below.
PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.
Cited: Drewry v. Phillips, 44 N.C. 85; Satterthwaite v. Daughtry, ib., 317; Taylor v. Sharp, 108 N.C. 381; Hornthal v. Burwell, 109 N.C. 17, 18; Cannady v. R. R., 143 N.C. 443.
(298)