Supreme Court of North Carolina July 15, 1816 (West v. Dubberly)

Seawell, J.

delivered the opiniop of the Court:

If the deed to the daughter was made with a view to defraud creditors, though clothed in the most solbmn form, it would be void when opposed to such claimants ; and if it was made without such motive actually existing, yet if unattested by a subscribing witness, it is declared void by the Act of 1784, which Act our Courts have construed to extend,