Liberty Mfg. Co. v. Malloy
Decision Date | 08 June 1940 |
Docket Number | 674. |
Citation | 9 S.E.2d 403,217 N.C. 666 |
Parties | LIBERTY MFG. CO. v. MALLOY et al. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Civil action to recover the value of property sold by individual defendant to corporate defendant and upon which plaintiff claims a lien.
On October 31, 1938, the defendant Malloy was indebted to the plaintiff as evidenced by two notes in the aggregate sum of $1,657.27, which notes were secured by a real estate mortgage. The first note in the sum of $857.27 matured October 1, 1938. On October 31, 1938 defendant Malloy executed to the plaintiff a note in the sum of $800 and at the same time executed and delivered a chattel mortgage to secure the same conveying "52 hogs averaging about 3 months old each, and weighing approximately 60 pounds each being all the hogs of this age and weight that I now own" subject to the agreement that from this number of hogs grantor excepted two as brood sows to be selected by him. This chattel mortgage contained the provision that "This chattel is given as additional security to a certain deed of trust on the lands of grantor in favor of Liberty Manufacturing Company, which deed of trust matured in part on 1 October, 1938". At the same time Malloy was indebted to the plaintiff on a crop lien mortgage in the sum of $577.93.
Subsequent to the execution of the chattel mortgage Malloy conveyed to the plaintiff the lands described in the deed of trust in satisfaction of the indebtedness thereby secured and said deed of trust was duly cancelled of record. The crop lien mortgage was marked paid November 23, 1938 and was duly cancelled of record.
In February and March, 1939, after the execution of the chattel mortgage, Malloy sold to the defendant Armour & Company 38 hogs for the sum of $393.10. Of this amount $11.24 was paid to plaintiff by Armour & Company on order of Malloy. Plaintiff sues for the balance claiming same under the terms of the chattel mortgage.
Issues were submitted to and answered by the jury under the instructions of the court that if they believed all of the evidence they would answer the same in favor of the plaintiff as indicated by the answers as follows:
From judgment thereon defendant Armour & Company appealed.
Downing & Downing, of Fayetteville, and Myers & Snerly, of Chicago, for defendant-appellant Armour & Co.
Johnson & Timberlake, of Lumberton, for plaintiff-appellee.
There was no present consideration for the execution of the chattel mortgage and note secured thereby. It was executed and delivered as additional security to the notes secured by the trust deed as is indicated upon its face. Witness for plaintiff so testified:
When an instrument creating a lien upon real or personal property is recorded as required by law it is for the purpose, in part at least, of giving notice of the lien to all persons who may thereafter acquire an interest in the property thus conveyed. It is equally true that when such instrument thus recorded is duly cancelled of record it gives notice that the lien thereby created no longer exists. All persons are charged with notice of the lien created by the registered instrument. They may rely with equal security upon the cancellation.
The debt secured is the life of the mortgage and gives it vigor and efficacy. The essential effect and consequence of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial