Van Eaton v. Napier
Van Eaton v. Napier
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The demurrer to the bill should have been sustained. The debtors, Cobb and Ligón, by an arrangement between themselves not participated in by the creditor, designated a fund which should be appropiated to the discharge of the note held by Skidmore, and it was left to Mr. Cobb to carry out the scheme. But no title lega] or equitable to the Anderson note passed to Skidmore, and when the note executed by Cobb & Ligón became barred by limitation, he lost all right to collect the debt thereby secured either by resort to the general. estate of the debtors or from the proceeds of the Anderson note. If Cobb has failed to appropriate the proceeds of this note to the payment of the Skidmore debt, and that debt has become barred by limitation, Ligón and not Skidmore is the person who could have called him to account for conversion of the fund. The extent of Skidmore’s right, if he at any time had any right to that specific fund, was to have it applied to the payment of his debt, and when he ceased to be creditor to Cobb and Ligón, he lost all right which rested upon that relationship.
The decree is reversed, demurrer sustained, and bill dismissed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Thermuthis H. Van Eaton v. Nancy Napier
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Limitation op Actions. Right of action on collateral barred when debt barred. Note held for another, when not in trust. In 1860 C. & L., partners in business, borrowed money from S. to pay for a tract of land which they had bought. In 1866 they sold the land to A., and took his promissory note for the purchase-money, which, by agreement between them (C. and L.), was made payable to S. It was further agreed between C. and L. that the former should deliver A.’s note to S., or collect the proceeds thereof and pay the same to S. O. failed to do either. The existence of this note and the agreement in respect thereto were never made known to S., -who died in 1881. In 1885 the legal representative of S.’s estate filed a bill in chancery charging that C. held the note of A. in trust for S., and that it was secured by a vendor’s lien on the land for which it was given, and praying that such land be sold and the proceeds thereof applied to the payment of the amount due on the note. Held, that no legal and equitable title to A.’s note passed to S.? and when the debt of C. & L. to him became barred by the statute of limitations he lost all right to bollect such debt, either from the debtors directly, or by resort to the note of A.