Harris v. Jones
| Decision Date | 30 June 1880 |
| Citation | 83 N.C. 317 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | W. J. HARRIS v. K. R. JONES. |
CIVIL ACTION, tried at Spring Term, 1880, of WILSON Superior Court, before Avery, J.
The case was submitted to the court upon the following facts agreed: On December 11th, 1877, one W. H. Bishop executed to Mollie Bardin a note under seal and a paper writing purporting to be a mortgage to secure the same, which are as follows:
$125. On demand Nov. 1st, 1878, I promise to pay Mollie R. Bardin or order one hundred and twenty-five dollars for value received for one bay horse. Dec. 11, 1877.
+------------------------------+
¦(Signed)¦W. H. Bishop [seal.] ¦
+------------------------------+
These presents between William H. Bishop of the county of Jones and state of North Carolina of the first part, and Mollie R. Bardin of the county of Wilson of the state of North Carolina of the other part, witnesseth that whereas the party of the first part is now engaged or about to engage in the cultivation of various crops upon a tract of land in Craven county, known as the farm which the said Bishop has recently purchased of E. R. Stanley, lying on Batchelor's creek and A. & N. C. R. R., and that the party of the first part is now indebted to the party of the second part one hundred and twenty-five dollars for one note; and that the party of the second part agrees to make advances in provisions and other supplies to the party of the first part from time to time during the year 1878, to be expended in the cultivation and housing the various crops to be made on the said land or farm during the said year, to the extent of one dollar beyond which amount the advances to be made shall not go. In consideration of one dollar and to secure the said indebtedness of one hundred and twenty-five dollars and the advances hereafter made by the party of the second part, the party of the first part conveys to the party of the second part, their heirs, executors and administrators, the following property: One bay horse known by the name of Dobbin, and a lien upon each and every of the said crops to be cultivated and made upon the said land or farm during the said year, with free power to take possession of all the said crops at any time and place after their maturity, and should the party of the first part do any act to defeat this lien, the debt and advances secured herein shall be due and collected at once, as may be sufficient upon sale thereof to satisfy such advances and indebtedness and all expenses of making and executing these presents, and to take possession and sell so much of said property as may be sufficient to discharge the said indebtedness and what is due for advances after the first day of November, 1878, unless on or before that time the same should be sooner discharged by the surplus of said crop or otherwise. Witness my hand and seal this the 11th day of December, 1877.
+------------------------------+
¦(Signed)¦W. H. Bishop [seal.] ¦
+------------------------------+
That the sole consideration of said note was the purchase of one horse used by the defendant in the cultivation of the crops herein referred to; that to secure the payment of the note the said W. H. Bishop, on the 11th day of December, 1877, executed to said Mollie R. Bardin the instrument, a copy of which is herewith filed as a part of this case, which was duly recorded in Craven county on the 28th of December, 1877; that no part of said note has been paid except the sum of forty-one dollars and seventy-five cents, realized from the sale of the horse conveyed in said mortgage lien; that on the first day of November, 1878, the said Mollie Bardin endorsed for value the said note to plaintiff; that on the 12th of February, 1878, the said W. H. Bishop, being indebted to K. R. Jones in the sum of eighty dollars, executed to him (defendant) a chattel mortgage, which was duly recorded in Craven county on the 1st of April, 1878; that on the 24th of May, 1878; the said Bishop being indebted to said defendant in the sum of one hundred dollars, executed to him a chattel mortgage, which was also duly recorded; that at the date of the execution of the mortgage to Mollie Bardin and the mortgage to the defendant on the 12th of February, 1878, the crops therein conveyed were not planted, but were planted on the 24th of May following, the date of the execution of the second mortgage to defendant Jones; that during the fall of 1878, the said Bishop delivered to defendant five bales of cotton which were raised during the year 1878 upon the land described in the mortgage to said Mollie Bardin and K. R. Jones, and the proceeds of the sale of said cotton, to wit, one hundred and fifty seven dollars, were applied to the payment of the notes described in the mortgages to said Jones and failed by twenty-three dollars of satisfying the same; that at the time of the receipt of said cotton, the defendant had no notice of the lien of the plaintiff other than the notice given by the registration of plaintiff's mortgage. At the time of the execution of the mortgage from Bishop to Bardin, to wit, Dec. 11th, 1877, the said Bishop was living in Jones county and had at that time bought the farm upon which the crops referred to were raised and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grier v. Weldon
...in it to the contrary, whether the mortgage debt be due and payable or not ***. The right of possession follows the right of property." Jones, supra; Hinson v. Smith & Co., In the present case we think the evidence was to the effect that if there was not an express, there was at least an im......
-
Willard v. Monarch Elevator Company
... ... essentials of a pledge were lacking. The clause in question ... clearly amounted to a chattel mortgage. Harris v ... Jones, 83 N.C. 317; Mitchell v. Badgett, 33 ... Ark. 307; Whitney v. Eichelberger, 16 Ia. 422 ... Counsel, by stipulating that the value ... ...
-
In re Coble
...of either, yet the words in both must clearly indicate the creation of a lien and meet certain other minimum requirements. Harris v. Jones, 1880, 83 N.C. 317; Britt v. Harrell, 1890, 105 N. C. 10, 10 S.E. 902; Grier v. Weldon, 1934, 205 N.C. 575, 172 S.E. 200. Whether the instrument in ques......
-
State v. Surues
...The defendant excepts, but on what ground it is not clear. His honor was correct in the ruling. Woodlief v. Harris, supra; Harris v. Jones, 83 N. C. 317. The court further charged the jury: "The state must satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant disposed of the mortgaged co......