Chatham Estates v. Am. Nat. Bank
| Decision Date | 10 May 1916 |
| Docket Number | (No. 456.) |
| Citation | 88 S.E. 783 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | CHATHAM ESTATES. v. AMERICAN NAT. BANK. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Webb, Judge.
Action by the Chatham Estates against the American National Bank. Judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint and dismissing the action, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
F. I. Osborne and H. L. Taylor, both of Charlotte, for appellant.
Herbert McClam-my, of Wilmington, David B. Smith and Til-lett & Guthrie, all of Charlotte, for appellee.
The substance of the complaint is that the defendant brought an action against the plaintiff in the superior court of Mecklenburg county about July, 1913, and filed a complaint as well as a lis pendens therein. Copies of the said complaint and lis pendens are attached to the complaint in this action, marked Exhibits A and B.
It is needless to set out the allegations of Exhibit A more fully than to say that the purpose of the action, as indicated by the allegations of the complaint and the prayers for judgment, was: First, to compel the directors of the United Development Company to transfer to the American National Bank a certificate of stock; second, to compel Paul Chatham, W. S. Lee, and N. A. Cooke to pay into the treasury of the United Development Company a balance due for stock; third, to have certain credits entered on certain notes given by the Chatham Estates, Incorporated; fourth, to declare void a certain deed for all of its lands and properties, executed by the United Development Company to the Chatham Estates, Incorporated; fifth, to recover of Paul Chatham the sum of $2,000.
The principal object of the action, however, seems to have been to set aside the deed from the United Development Company to the Chatham Estates. The present complaint alleges that at September term, 1914, of the superior court of Mecklenburg county, the American National Bank submitted to a voluntary nonsuit in said action as to the United Development Company, W. S. Lee, and N. A. Cooke, and that a demurrer was filed to the complaint by the other defendants, which was sustained by the court, and the action dismissed, and from this ruling no appeal was ever taken or perfected by the American National Bank.
The complaint in the present action further alleges that the above action, together with the complaint and lis pendens filed therein, constitute a cloud upon its title to the lands conveyed to it, and hindered, delayed, and prevented the plaintiff from borrowing money upon the security of said lands, which it attempted to do for the purpose of improving the lands and putting them in a salable condition upon the market; that in consequence of this plaintiff sustained a loss of a large sum of money and was compelled to practically withdraw all of the said lands from the market during the pendency of the said action. The complaint goes on to give instances of agreements to sell parts of the land to certain individuals, which the plaintiff was compelled to abandon because of the pendency of the said action.
The complaint further alleges that this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnson
... ... check upon a bank where there were no funds to meet it, and ... thereby obtain money or ... ...
-
N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cully's Motorcross Park, Inc.
...willfully and maliciously, for the purpose of injuring his neighbor.” Chatham Estates v. Am. Nat'l Bank, 171 N.C. 648, 651, 171 N.C. 579, 582, 88 S.E. 783, 785 (1916). This sensible approach encourages independent investigation by those in law enforcement who receive the information. Unlike......
-
Hewes v. Wolfe, 8427SC749
...through the tort of abuse of process. Austin v. Wilder, 26 N.C.App. 229, 233, 215 S.E.2d 794, 797 (1975), quoting Estates v. Bank, 171 N.C. 579, 582, 88 S.E. 783, 784 (1916). Plaintiffs' complaint states a claim upon which relief may be Defendant Johnston also contends that his motion for d......
-
Brown v. Averette
...as in Brown v. Guaranty Estates Corp., 239 N.C. 595, 80 S.E.2d 645 (1954); or a lis pendens, as in Chatham Estates v. American National Bank, 171 N.C. 579, 88 S.E. 783 (1916); or an injunction, as in Shute v. Shute, 180 N.C. 386, 104 S.E. 764 (1920)--is misplaced. The law does not grant red......