Opinion

Hutaff v. . Adrian

  • 112 N.C. 259
  • 17 S.E. 78
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Filed
Feb 5, 1893
Status
Published
Author
Clark
On the bench
Clark
Cited by
6 cases
Authority
More cited than 90.0%

The opinion

Clark, J.:

Upon the allegations in the complaint taken as true the defendants’ bond and mortgage are alike barred by the statute of limitations.

The Code,

§152 (2) and (3). A sale under such mortgage would carry to the purchaser no title. The plaintiff mortgagor being in possession has a full defence to an action for ejectment when brought by the purchaser.

Capehart

v.

Biggs,

77 N. C., 261 ;

Fox

v.

Kline,

85 N. C., 173 . The Court will, therefore, not interpose by injunction merely to prevent a cloud upon the title.

Southerland

v.

Harper,

83 N. C., 200 ;

Browning

v.

Lavender,

104 N C., 69.

It would be otherwise if the contest was 'as to the amount due under the mortgage (whether any balance is due at all, or how much), since then, if any balance is due. the purchaser at the mortgage sale will get a good title, and it might put the plaintiff mortgagor to a serious disadvantage if there were a sale before the amount due is determined.

Purnell

v.

Vaughan,

77 N. C., 268 ;

Capehart

v.

Biggs, supra; Pritchard

v.

Sanderson,

84 N. C., 299 ;

Harrison

v.

Bray,

92 N. C., 488 ;

Gooch

v.

Vaughan, Ibid.,

610.

No Error.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.