Bullington v. Angel, No. 22.
| Docket Nº | No. 22. |
| Citation | 16 S.E.2d 411, 220 N.C. 18 |
| Case Date | September 17, 1941 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
16 S.E.2d 411
220 N.C. 18
BULLINGTON.
v.
ANGEL.
No. 22.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Sept. 17, 1941.
Appeal from Superior Court, Macon County; Felix E. Alley, Judge.
Action by W. H. Bullington against Furman Angel to recover a deficiency judgment. From an adverse judgment, the defendant appeals.
Judgment reversed, and case remanded.
Jones & Jones, of Franklin, and Jones, Ward & Jones, of Asheville, for appellant.
[16 S.E.2d 412]Morphew & Morphew, of Robbinsville, and R. Roy Rush, of Roanoke, Va., for appellee.
SCHENCK, Justice.
The plaintiff alleges in effect that he contracted in the State of Virginia with the defendant for the sale and purchase of a tract of land in Viriginia, that he executed a deed to the defendant for said land, and the defendant paid him a part of the purchase price and executed to trustees a deed of trust on said land to secure several notes representing the balance of the purchase price therefor; that there was a default in the payment of one of said notes when due, and plaintiff exercised the right given in said deed of trust to declare the remaining notes due, and called upon said trustees to sell the land to provide funds with which to pay the unpaid notes; that said trustees advertised and sold said land and applied the funds arising therefrom to the payment of said notes; that after such application of such funds there was a deficiency still due on said notes and this action is to recover such deficiency.
To the complaint the defendant filed a demurrer upon the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, for that it appears from the face thereof that the action is to recover a deficiency judgment on notes given for the purchase price of real estate.
The Court entered judgment overruling the demurrer to which the defendant preserved exception and appealed.
The question presented is: When it appears from the complaint that the notes and deed of trust upon which the action is predicated were executed subsequent to February 6, 1933, in Virginia, and relate to real estate in Virginia, do the provisions of the law of North Carolina, Chap. 36, Public Laws 1933 (N.C. Code of 1939 (Michie), § 2593(f), prevent the holder of the notes secured by such deed of trust from obtaining a deficiency judgment thereon in the courts of North Carolina? The answer is in the affirmative.
Section 1, Chap. 36, Public Laws 1933, which was ratified 6 February, 1933, in part, reads: "In all sales of real...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Osborne, No. 355PA18
...T.R.P. , 360 N.C. at 590, 636 S.E.2d at 789–90 ; then quoting T.R.P. at 590, 636 S.E.2d at 790 ; then quoting Bullington v. Angel , 220 N.C. 18, 20, 16 S.E.2d 411, 412 (1941) ; then quoting Eudy v. Eudy , 288 N.C. 71, 75, 215 S.E.2d 782, 785 (1975), overruled on other grounds by Quick v. Qu......
-
Time Warner Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Partnership v. Town of Landis, 10 CVS 1172
...the jurisdiction of the courts of this State, '" In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. at 590, 636 S.E.2d at 790 (quoting Bullington v. Angel, 220 N.C. 18, 20, 16 S.E.2d 411, 412 (1941)), such that "'[w]here jurisdiction is statutory and the Legislature requires the Court to exercise its jurisdiction in a......
-
In re T.R.P., No. 629A05.
...Assembly "within constitutional limitations, can fix and circumscribe the jurisdiction of the courts of this State." Bullington v. Angel, 220 N.C. 18, 20, 16 S.E.2d 411, 412 (1941). "Where jurisdiction is statutory and the Legislature requires the Court to exercise its jurisdiction in a cer......
-
Miller v. Davis, Nos. 73-2009
...foreclosed-upon land) the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the statute ousted the state courts from jurisdiction over the complaint. 220 N.C. 18, 16 S.E.2d 411 (1941). The vendor then sued in a North Carolina federal court, under diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. The United State......
-
State v. Osborne, No. 355PA18
...T.R.P. , 360 N.C. at 590, 636 S.E.2d at 789–90 ; then quoting T.R.P. at 590, 636 S.E.2d at 790 ; then quoting Bullington v. Angel , 220 N.C. 18, 20, 16 S.E.2d 411, 412 (1941) ; then quoting Eudy v. Eudy , 288 N.C. 71, 75, 215 S.E.2d 782, 785 (1975), overruled on other grounds by Quick v. Qu......
-
Time Warner Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Partnership v. Town of Landis, 10 CVS 1172
...the jurisdiction of the courts of this State, '" In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. at 590, 636 S.E.2d at 790 (quoting Bullington v. Angel, 220 N.C. 18, 20, 16 S.E.2d 411, 412 (1941)), such that "'[w]here jurisdiction is statutory and the Legislature requires the Court to exercise its jurisdiction in a......
-
In re T.R.P., No. 629A05.
...Assembly "within constitutional limitations, can fix and circumscribe the jurisdiction of the courts of this State." Bullington v. Angel, 220 N.C. 18, 20, 16 S.E.2d 411, 412 (1941). "Where jurisdiction is statutory and the Legislature requires the Court to exercise its jurisdiction in a cer......
-
Miller v. Davis, Nos. 73-2009
...foreclosed-upon land) the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the statute ousted the state courts from jurisdiction over the complaint. 220 N.C. 18, 16 S.E.2d 411 (1941). The vendor then sued in a North Carolina federal court, under diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. The United State......