Bullington v. Angel, Civil Action No. 385.
Decision Date | 03 August 1944 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 385. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
Parties | BULLINGTON v. ANGEL. |
W. Roy Francis, of Waynesville, N. C., and R. Roy Rush, of Roanoke, Va., for plaintiff.
Jones, Ward & Jones, of Asheville, N. C., for defendant.
The sole question presented by the agreed statement of facts is whether the provisions of the Law of North Carolina, Chapter 36, Public Laws 1933, bar the plaintiff from maintaining this suit in this Court. This statute undertakes to prevent any person from securing a deficiency judgment "on account of such mortgage, deed of trust or obligation secured by the same."
This plaintiff, in spite of the statute, brought suit in the Superior Court of North Carolina, to secure judgment on the unpaid notes amounting to Three Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($3,100), which is admitted was a deficiency. The Superior Court Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover but, when the case was carried to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, 220 N.C. 18, 16 S.E.2d 411, 412, it reversed the holding of the Superior Court Judge and denied the plaintiff the right to recover in the state court.
Judge Schenck in writing the opinion of the Court, among other things said:
Do this statute and the decision of the Supreme Court likewise limit the jurisdiction of the federal court?
I think not. During my nearly twenty-five years on the federal bench, I have scrupulously respected and guarded the rights of the states, but I cannot now go so far as to hold that the Legislature of North Carolina can deprive a non-resident of the right to come into this Court and sue a local defendant to recover an amount in excess of three thousand dollars which is admittedly due the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is a resident of Virginia. The land mortgaged lies in Virginia. The deed of trust signed by the defendant was a Virginia contract and the notes signed by the defendant were made payable at a bank in Roanoke, Virginia.
It is the contention of the defendant that the state has established its public policy closing the doors of its courts to deficiency judgments and that a federal court sitting in this state is bound by the act of the Legislature.
The jurisdiction of this Court so far as the present case is concerned is conferred by the United States Statute in the following language: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction as follows:
28 U.S.C.A. § 41(1).
In the case of Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U.S. 100, 18 S.Ct. 526, 530, 42 L.Ed. 964, the Court said: "The jurisdiction so conferred upon the national courts cannot be abridged or impaired by any statute of a state."
In the case of Stephenson v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., 7 Cir., 110 F.2d 401, 405, 132 A.L.R. 455, it was held that the State of Illinois could not close the doors of the federal courts in Illinois for a wrongful death occurring in Michigan. The Legislature of Illinois passed a statute forbidding the bringing or prosecution of any action in Illinois to recover damages for death by wrongful act occurring outside the state.
Judge Major, Circuit Judge, speaking for the Court, among other things, said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Angel v. Bullington
...District of North Carolina. Angel pleaded in bar the judgment in the North Carolina action. The District Court gave judgment for Bullington, 56 F.Supp. 372, and the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. 150 F.2d 679. We granted certiorari, 326 U.S. 713, because the failu......
-
Blunda v. Craig
...92 F.2d 744; East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. et al. v. Atlanta & F. R. Co., C.C.S.D.Ga. 1892, 49 F. 608. See also, Bullington v. Angel, D.C.W.D. N.C. 1944, 56 F.Supp. 372, affirmed 4 Cir., 150 F.2d In East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co., et al. v. Atlanta & F. R. Co., supra, a bill was brought in......
-
Sweeney v. City of Louisville
...in North Carolina, by its Supreme Court, Bullington instituted suit in the District Court of North Carolina and obtained a judgment, 56 F. Supp. 372, which was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 150 F.2d 679. Having granted certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed the Nort......
-
Frank v. McMeekan
...56 F. Supp. 369 ... Civil Action No. 3600 ... District Court, E. D. New York ... ...