# Dunn v. Beaman &8212 No. 1

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 29, 1900 · 126 N.C. 764

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3663656

## Case

- **Full name:** WILLIAM A. DUNN, Receiver of the Clinton Loan Association Et Al. v. MITTIE R. BEAMAN, Administratrix C. T. A. of JOHN R. BEAMAN, Sr., Et Al. Heirs and Devisees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** May 29, 1900
- **Citations:** 126 N.C. 764; 36 S.E. 174; 1900 N.C. LEXIS 312
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by ClaRK
- **Judges:** ClaRK
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3663656

## Opinion text

ClaRK, J.
This was a proceeding' by a creditor under Code sec. 1448, to compel an account and settlement of the estate of John E. Beaman. The claim of M. J. Hobbs, the appellant, was No. 1J, as numbered by the referee. The appellant, Hobbs, contended that he was assignee of a judgment which had been rendered against a firm composed of John E. Beaman, J. A. Ferrell, and T. M. Ferrell. The referee found that Hobbs paid no money to the plaintiff in the execution, but that said money was “really, though not directly, paid to plaintiff by the judgment debtors, J. A. and T. M. Ferrell.” This finding of fact was approved by the J ndge. There being evidence tending to support the finding it is conclusive on appeal. Clark’s Code, sec. 422 (3d Ed.), and cases cited. The conclusion of law follows that the claim of M. J. Hobbs was extinguished and properly disallowed. Whatever balance, if any, is due the Ferrells on a settlement of their partnership accounts against John E. Beaman could be proven against Beaman’s estate in this action, if not barred by the statute of limitations. This is not the case of a surety paying the debt of a principal, and if it had been, the judg
*766
ment was extinguished because it was not assigned to a trustee for the benefit of the surety.
Browning v. Porter,
116 N. C., 62 .
No error*.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3663656. Public record. Not legal advice.