Armstrong v. Home Service Stores

166 S.E. 321, 203 N.C. 499, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 20

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: November 9, 1932
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The appeal in this case was dismissed, anle, 231, for failure to comply with the rules; but, on motion and completion of the record, it has been reinstated.

A single question is presented for decision: Is a chattel mortgage duly authorized by a corporation and signed in its name by its president and attested by its secretary void for failure to attach the corporate seal? We think not.

It was said in Duke v. Markham, 105 N. C., 131, 10 S. E., 1017, 18 Am. St. Rep., 889, that a seal is not essential to the validity of a chattel mortgage whether executed by an individual or a corporation.

The party claiming under such corporate mortgage, however, would have the burden of showing its authenticity, for in the absence of the company’s seal, there is no presumption of corporate action. Duke v. Markham, supra; Despatch Line v. Bellamy Mfg. Co., 12 N. H., 205, 37 Am. Dec., 203. Here, the due authorization of the execution of the mortgage in question is Conceded. Jones-Phillips Co. v. McCormick, 174 N. C., 82, 93 S. E., 449; Benbow v. Cook, 115 N. C., 324, 20 S. E., 453; Comron v. Standland, 103 N. C., 207, 9 S. E., 317; Rawlings v. Hunt, 90 N. C., 270; 5 R. C. L., 393.

Perhaps it should be observed that we are not dealing with a conveyance or real estate mortgage of a corporation. Bailey v. Hassell, 184 N. C., 450, 115 S. E., 166; Caldwell v. Mfg. Co., 121 N. C., 339, 28 S. E., 475.

Error.