Bowman v. Barker

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Bowman v. Barker

210 S.E.2d 115, 24 N.C. App. 110, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1942

Court of Appeals of North Carolina·Decided December 4, 1974·No. No. 7419SC804·Published

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The present status of this case reveals not only an action for monetary damages against the defendant Barker but likewise an action to have a deed of trust securing a note declared null and void and the defendant Barker restrained from further actions with regard to selling the house and lot of the plaintiffs. In this situation, the trustee in the deed of trust is a necessary and indispensable party. Smith v. Bank, 223 N.C. 249, 25 S.E. 2d 859 (1943) ; Grady v. Parker, 228 N.C. 54, 44 S.E. 2d 449 (1947). The judgment dismissing the action as to Bell, substitute trustee, is erroneous.

Reversed.

Judges Morris and Martin concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The present status of this case reveals not only an action for monetary damages against the defendant Barker but likewise an action to have a deed of trust securing a note declared null and void and the defendant Barker restrained from further actions with regard to selling the house and lot of the plaintiffs. In this situation, the trustee in the deed of trust is a necessary and indispensable party. Smith v. Bank, 223 N.C. 249, 25 S.E. 2d 859 (1943) ; Grady v. Parker, 228 N.C. 54, 44 S.E. 2d 449 (1947). The judgment dismissing the action as to Bell, substitute trustee, is erroneous.

Reversed.

Judges Morris and Martin concur.

Bowman v. Barker, 210 S.E.2d 115, 24 N.C. App. 110, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1942 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

210 S.E.2d 115 (Bowman v. Barker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related