Bank of Maxton v. Canaday

122 S.E. 179, 187 N.C. 493, 1924 N.C. LEXIS 322

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: April 2, 1924
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stacy, J.

On tbe bearing, tbe title offered was properly made to depend upon tbe sufficiency of tbe following probate to a deed from a corporation, Harnett Lumber Company, to A. D. McKenzie, tbe said deed forming a link in plaintiff’s chain of title:

North OaeoliNA — Robeson County.

I, J. S. Jones, a notary public in and for said county and State, do hereby certify that W. E. Williams, president, and W. J. Johnson, secretary and treasurer of tbe Harnett Lumber Company, personally appeared before me this date and acknowledged tbe due execution of tbe foregoing deed of conveyance. Let tbe same, with this certificate, be registered. Witness my band and notarial seal, this 28 April, 1913.

(Seal.) J. S. Jones, N. P.

My commission expires 10 March, 1915.

Tbe case states that tbe execution of said deed is in regular form; that it is signed in tbe name of tbe corporation by its president, attested by its secretary and treasurer, and tbe corporate seal duly affixed thereto; that tbe fiat of tbe clerk of tbe Superior Court, adjudging tbe probate to be correct and sufficient and ordering tbe instrument to registration, is in proper form, and that tbe deed was duly registered on 19 December, 1913.

We think tbe sufficiency of tbe probate in question must be upheld under what was said in Bailey v. Hassell, 184 N. C., 451, and Withrell v. Murphy, 154 N. C., p. 89. Tbe judgment will be affirmed on authority of these cases.

While we uphold tbe sufficiency of tbe present probate, it may not be amiss to remark that tbe use of its kind, as a general practice, is not to be commended, for tbe very good reason that it borders near tbe line of defective probate and leads almost invariably to litigation, as witness tbe instant suit and tbe others above mentioned.

Affirmed.