Bundy v. Commercial Credit Co

• Decision Date: 12 February 1930
• Docket Number: (No. 467.)
• Citation: 151 S.E. 626
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: BUNDY. v. COMMERCIAL CREDIT CO.

151 S.E. 626

(198 N.C. 339)

BUNDY.

v.COMMERCIAL CREDIT CO.

(No. 467.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 12, 1930.

Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Sink, Special Judge.

Suit by Charles W. Bundy, receiver of the Triplett Lumber Company, against the Commercial Credit Company. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Charles W. Bundy was duly appointed receiver of the Triplett Lumber Company, a corporation. The allegations in the complaint are to the effect that the Triplett Lumber Company, owned sundry accounts, setting forth from whom and the amounts due it, aggregating the sum of $13,020; that the defendant had filed a claim with plaintiff receiver, claiming that the Triplett Lumber Company owed it $12,051.40, and also claiming to be the owner of the accounts above referred to, and demanding from the debtors that the amounts be paid to defendant, and not to plaintiff receiver; that in consequence of these conflicting demands the debtors were uncertain to whom to pay, and by delay in collecting there might be loss; "that the plaintiff is fearful lest a large part of said accounts will be lost, or the value thereof destroyed, unless they are promptly and speedily collected; that, unless the defendant is restrained and enjoined from continuing its demands and notices, the plaintiff will be unable to collect said accounts without the necessity of instituting separate suits against each one of the said debtors, although the plaintiff is informed and believes that any rights which the defendant may have against any or all of said accounts rest upon the same basis, and that to force this plaintiff to institute separate suits against each of the said debtors will be a useless and unnecessary waste and expense;" that defendant be restrained from collecting the accounts, and plaintiff receiver be ordered to collect same; and "that the defendant be ordered and directed to assert in said receivership proceedings any right, title, or interest which it may have or claim in, to, or against said accounts, or any of them."

Defendant in its answer admits it claims to be the owner of the sundry accounts under a contract made by it and the Triplett Lumber Company, on September 29, 1926, and sets forth a copy of the contract. It claims that the sundry accounts were purchased in due course of business for value. It admits that it has notified the debtors to pay the sundry accounts to it, as defendant owns them; that under the above contract no title to the account passed to plaintiff as receiver—and prayed that the restraining order be denied.

The matter came on for hearing before Judge A. M. Stack on April 2, 1929, and a consent order was agreed to, and plaintiff ordered to collect the sundry accounts; "that the rights of the plaintiff and defendant attach to the proceeds arising from the collection of said accounts in...