YANCEY COUNTY, NC - COURT - Calvin Edney vs. James Wilson, 
			    in the Supreme Court, 1844
====================================================================
     USGENWEB NOTICE: In keeping with our policy of providing
         free information on the Internet, data may be used by
         non-commercial entities, as long as this message
         remains on all copied material. These electronic
         pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit
         or for presentation by other persons or organizations.

         Persons or organizations desiring to use this material
         for purposes other than stated above must obtain the
         written consent of the file contributor.

	 The submitter has given permission to the USGenWeb Archives
	 to store the file permanently for free access.

         This file was contributed for use in the USGenWeb
         Archives by: Marshall Styles, marshallstyles@yahoo.com
====================================================================
 
  North Carolina State Supreme Court, December Term, 1844, 27 NC 233.
  
DEN EX DEM. CALVIN EDNEY et al v. JAMES WILSON, regarding the property of
one William Jones Lewis, at one time the property of James Wilson, who had 
purchased it from his father-in-law, Blake Piercey, who is mentioned in the 
suit as a non- party.
  
[These are Yancey County persons. James Wilson is the brother of Calvin's 
wife, Lucinda Wilson. William Jones Lewis married Lucinda's sister, Cecelia 
A. Wilson.  Calvin Edney is, therefore, suing his brother-in-law. William J. 
Lewis was a grandson of Major William Mills of Henderson County, from whom 
Calvin Edney also descended, and are thus first cousins. James and Lucinda 
Wilson are children of Edward Wilson and Mary Gilbert; Calvin is the son of 
Asa and Sarah Mills Edney of Edneyville, Henderson County. Blake Piercey is 
the father of Mary Piercey, who was married to the above James Wilson.]
 
The lessors of the plaintiff claimed under a sale by execution, tested in 
March 1832, against one Lewis. The defendant shewed that Lewis had only an 
equitable title, and that by bond, bearing date in January, 1832, he had 
contracted to sell the same to the defendant -- Held, first, that the title of 
Lewis having been equitable, the defendant could be levied.
  
Held, secondly, that Lewis by his bond had conveyed all his equitable interest 
to the defendant, before the tests of the plaintiff's execution, and therefore 
there was nothing on which that execution could be levied.
  
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Yancey County, at the Fall Term, 
1844, his Honor Judge Battle presiding.
  
The lessors of the plaintiff claimed the premises in dispute, as the 
purchasers thereof, at an execution sale of the property of William J(ones) 
Lewis. The plaintiff alleged, that the defendant also claimed under the said 
Lewis, and gave him notice to produce on the trial the contract or instruments 
under which he claimed; an, accordingly, the defendant produced the bonds 
hereinafter mentioned, and the plaintiff read them to the jury.
  
The one is an obligation, dated the 3d of January, 1832, given by William J. 
Lewis to the present defendant, in the penalty of $800, with condition that he 
would, on request, convey or cause to be conveyed to Wilson the premises in 
dispute, which are therein described as being part of a tract of land, which 
Blake Piercey had before agreed to sell to James Wilson, (the defendant) and 
bound himself, Piercey, by bond, to convey to said Wilson, and which land the 
said Wilson had sold to the said Lewis, and transferred by assigning to Lewis 
the said bond so given by Piercey. The other bond produced by the defendant 
was that referred to in the one just mentioned, and is an obligation, dated
November 14, 1828, given by Blake Piercey to James Wilson, in the penalty of 
$1000, with condition that he would convey to said Wilson, or his assigns, a 
certain tract of land therein described; which, it is admitted, includes, as a 
part of it, the premises in dispute.
On this bond is an endorsement, dated January 23d, 1830, purporting to be a 
contract of sale from Wilson to Lewis, of the land mentioned in the bond, and 
to be an assignment of the bond to Lewis.
  
In March, 1832, judgment was rendered against William J. Lewis, and execution 
thereon in July following, on which the premises were sold, and the lessors of 
the plaintiff bought them; the present defendant being then in possession 
under his contract of re-purchase.
  
On the trial the counsel for the plaintiff contended, that the defendant, 
claiming under Lewis, was estopped to deny a legal title in him; or, at all 
events, that Lewis had such an equitable title as was subject to be sold under 
execution, so that the legal title would pass to the purchaser. But the Court 
held otherwise, and the plaintiff submitted to a non-suit and appealed.
  
Francis, for the plaintiff. No counsel for the defendant.
  
JUDGE THOMAS RUFFIN: The title of Lewis appeared, upon the plaintiff's own
evidence, to have been but equitable at any time, and, consequently, the 
defendant could not be estopped from insisting thereon.
  
If Lewis be considered as the "cestui que trust" in fee, then the land was not 
subject to the execution, under which it was sold, because, before execution 
sued, Lewis had contracted to sell to the defendant, which amounted to an 
assignment of the trust, and took the case out of the act of 1812, Hall v. 
Harris. Indeed, Lewis' sale to the defendant was some months before the teste 
of the executions, and even the rendering of the judgments against Lewis, and 
it is not impeached for fraud; so that there could be nothing in him, either 
at law or in equity, liable to execution.
  
PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, in favor of James Wilson