Leggett v. Bullock
| Decision Date | 30 June 1853 |
| Citation | 44 N.C. 283 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | DEN, ex dem. BENJAMIN LEGGETT et al. v. ALLEN BULLOCK. |
As between the parties, a mortgage is valid without registration.
THIS was an action of EJECTMENT, upon the several demises of Benjamin Leggett and Lembury James, tried before his Honor, Judge BAILEY, at Martin, on the last Spring Circuit.
It was admitted that, on the 30th of April, 1849, the premises in the declaration mentioned, belonged to one William Bullock; and it was in evidence that on that day, he was indebted to Gambril & Williams to the amount of fifty-six dollars, and Lembury James became his surety for the debt; and to secure the payment thereof, took from him a deed of mortgage of the said premises. The said deed was not registered; and it was in evidence that it was lost; but the plaintiff produced and read a deed, duly proved and registered, which the subscribing witness (to both deeds) stated was substantially a copy of the deed delivered 30th April, 1849. The latter deed was executed and delived 17th February, 1852, and was given in the stead and place of the former lost one. The plaintiff then read a deed from William Bullock and Lembury James to Benjamin Leggett, dated and delivered 10th day of May, 1850. It was further in evidence that the defendant went into possession of the premises prior to 30th April, 1849, as the tenant at will of William Bullock, his son; that on the 8th January, 1850, William Bullock executed and delivered to the defendant a deed of gift for the said premises, and in pursuance of an agreement, made 10th May, 1849, the defendant claimed adversely under said deed. After the 10th of May, 1850, and before the bringing of this action, the lessor of the plaintiff, Leggett, demanded from the defendant the possession of the premises, which was refused. The date of the demise in the declaration, is 21st September, 1851. Upon this state of facts, his Honor, the presiding Judge, was of opinion that the plaintiff could not recover, and in submission thereto, the plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit, and from the judgment rendered accordingly, appealed to the Supreme Court.
Biggs, for the lessor of the plaintiff .
No counsel for the defendant in this Court.
In 1849, William Bullock executed a mortgage to James, one of the lessors, for the land in controversy. This deed was never registered, and is lost. In 1850, Bullock executed a deed for the same land to the defendant, his father, without valuable consideration, which deed was duly registered. The plaintiff read in evidence a deed executed by William Bullock to the lessor, James, in 1852, which purports to be a substitute for the mortgage of 1849, and the subscribing witness swore that it was substantially a copy.
His Honor was of opinion that the plaintiff could not recover, we suppose, on the ground that the mortgage was inoperative for want of registration; and for that reason secondary evidence of its contents was not admissible, and could not, if admissible, have the effect of showing title in the lessor.
The defendant being a volunteer, stands in the place of his donor: so the only question is, does the law require a mortgage to be registered as between the parties? This depends upon the construction of the 1st, 23rd and 24th sections of 37th chapter, Rev. Statutes.
The Act of 1715, ch. 7, sec. 1, provides:--“no conveyance or bill of sale for land (other than mortgages) shall be” valid, unless proven and registered in twelve months after date. Sec. 7 provides:--“every mortgage of lands which shall be first registered, shall be deemed the first morgage, and shall be valid notwithstanding any former mortgage, unless such prior mortgage shall be registered within fifty days after date.”
The Act of 1820 provides:--
The Act of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Cunningham
...creditors have become fastened upon the property, as by insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings, before the recording takes place. Leggett v. Bullock, 44 N. C. 283; South Georgia Motor Company v. Jackson, 184 N. C. 328, 331, 114 S. E. 478; McBrayer v. Harrill, 152 N. C. 712, 68 S. E. 204; Obse......
-
Barrett Et Ux v. Barrett
...or grant from the grantor acquired prior to the curative act. As between the parties, the deed is valid without registration. Den v. Bullock, 44 N. C. 283. The feme plaintiff signed the deed, and her privy examination was properly taken. There is no controversy on these points. The sole def......
-
McCreary Tire & Rubber Co. v. Crawford, 21
...Acceptance Corporation v. Mayberry, supra; Thomas v. Cooksey, 130 N.C. 148, 41 S.E. 2; Butts v. Screws, 95 N.C. 215. See Leggett et al. v. Bullock, 44 N.C. 283. G.S. § 47-20 does not protect every creditor or purchaser against unrecorded chattel mortgages or conditional sales contracts of p......
-
Coggin v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
...for value and against creditors only from registration. The mortgage, however, is good between the parties without registration, Leggett v. Bullock, 44 N. C. 283; McBrayer v. Harrill, 152 N. C. 712, 68 S. E. 204; Gosney v. McCullers, 202 N. C. 326, 162 S. E. 746, and, when registered, is go......