Broadhurst v. . Brooks

113 S.E. 576, 184 N.C. 123, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 28
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 27, 1922
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 113 S.E. 576 (Broadhurst v. . Brooks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Broadhurst v. . Brooks, 113 S.E. 576, 184 N.C. 123, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 28 (N.C. 1922).

Opinion

Ciabk, C. J.

Stancill and wife, in 1915, executed their several promissory notes to Alonzo Parrish aggregating $20,000, the last of which fell due 1 January, 1921, and executed-to E. H. Brooks, trustee, a deed of trust conveying certain lands as security therefor. The defendant Brooks, trustee, advertised said lands for sale under the deed of trust on 20 December, 1921. Stancill and wife thereupon instituted suit to restrain said sale, alleging that the defendant Parrish was guilty of usury, and had retained $2,000 of the principal, and that Stancill actually received only $18,000. On the hearing of the Stancill suit, Calvert, J., continued the restraining order upon condition that Stancill and wife should pay, on or before 4 April, 1922, $11,462.98, with the provision that if that sum was not paid by said date the restraining order would be dissolved and the trustee should be at liberty to readvertise and sell the land. The sum thus prescribed was the principal with legal interest. This action is by the second mortgagee, who contends that the sale should not take place if Stancill should fail to make such payment until the plaintiff is afforded full opportunity to pay the principal only, without interest.

*125 The plaintiff alleges that he will be forced to purchase the mortgaged land in order to protect his rights as a junior mortgagee, and contends that this injunction should be continued to the hearing unless the sum due on the first mortgage, deducting all interest, should be ascertained and definitely determined, and he be given opportunity to pay that sum and take an assignment of the first mortgage.

The junior mortgagee is entitled to pay off and discharge any valid lien upon the property, which cannot be done unless and until this amount is ascertained. Elliott v. Brady, 172 N. C., 828.

The plaintiff, as second mortgagee, has the legal title to the property subject only to the amount legally due upon the first mortgage, and the equity of redemption in the mortgagor. The lien of the first mortgage as against the second mortgagee, under our statute, if there has been usury as to the first mortgagee, is the principal without interest. C. S., 2306. The plaintiff is entitled to have such sum ascertained and an order by the judge that upon payment of that sum by the second mortgagee the first mortgage shall be assigned to him and the injunction should then be dissolved. Elliott v. Brady, supra; Erwin v. Morris, 137 N. C., 48.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Allied Mortgage & Development Co. v. Pitts
158 S.E.2d 53 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)
Sineath v. . Katzis
14 S.E.2d 418 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
Pinnix v. . Casualty Co.
200 S.E. 874 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Pinnix v. Maryland Casualty Co.
214 N.C. 760 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Sherrill v. . Hood, Comr. of Banks
181 S.E. 330 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Porter v. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance
178 S.E. 223 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Whitaker v. . Chase
174 S.E. 225 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Smith v. . Agricultural Corp.
172 S.E. 926 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Smith v. International Agricultural Corp.
205 N.C. 846 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Wilson v. Union Trust Co. of Maryland
158 S.E. 479 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
S. B. Parker Co. v. Commercial National Bank
157 S.E. 419 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 S.E. 576, 184 N.C. 123, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broadhurst-v-brooks-nc-1922.