Coble v. . Dick

140 S.E. 745, 194 N.C. 732, 1927 N.C. LEXIS 195
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedDecember 21, 1927
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 140 S.E. 745 (Coble v. . Dick) 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
Coble v. . Dick, 140 S.E. 745, 194 N.C. 732, 1927 N.C. LEXIS 195 (N.C. 1927).

Opinion

Olakksou, J.

C. S., 2713, in part, is as follows: “Whenever tbe governing body shall confirm an assessment for a local improvement, tbe clerk of tbe municipality shall enter on tbe minutes of tbe governing-body tbe date, hour and minute of such confirmation, and from the time of such confirmation the assessments embraced in the assessment roll shall be a lien on the read property against which the same are assessed, superior to all other liens and encumbrances.” (Italics ours.)

C. S., 2716, provides tbat payment of assessments can be in cash or by installments.

C. S., 2717, provides bow tbe payment can be enforced.

In Kinston v. R. R., 183 N. C., p. 14, it is termed a “statutory mortgage.” Ba nk v. Watson, 187 N. C., p. 107.

In Hahn v. Fletcher, 189 N. C., at p. 732, it is said: “From tbe facts found tbe covenant in plaintiff’s deed was ‘against encumbrances.’ When defendant delivered tbe deed to plaintiff, this covenant was broken with tbe street assessment — a lien or a statutory mortgage on tbe land. Plaintiff could have at once sued for tbe breach.” In Farrow v. Ins. Co., 192 N. C., p. 148, this encumbrance was held not such as to defeat insurance policy under sole ownership clause. It will be noted in tbe Hahn case, supra, tbe action was tried out on tbe theory tbat tbe justice of tbe peace court bad no jurisdiction. It was so .held — technical but legal. See Comrs. v. Sparks, 179 N. C., p. 581.

In tbe present action tbe agreed statement of fact sets forth, “It is agreed tbat tbe entire question is whether such assessment is an encumbrance as contemplated or included in tbe warranty.” We are not disposed ex mero motu to dismiss tbe action for want of jurisdiction.

Upon tbe facts agreed upon in this case tbe street assessment lien is an encumbrance witbin tbe meaning of tbe warranty clause in tbe deed from defendant to plaintiff. Tbe judgment of tbe court below is

Affirmed.

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

Related

First American Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Royall
334 S.E.2d 792 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1985)
FIRST AMERICAN FED. SAV. & LOAN v. Royall
334 S.E.2d 792 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1985)
Raleigh v. . Bank
26 S.E.2d 573 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
City of Raleigh v. Mechanics & Farmers Bank
223 N.C. 286 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
Oliver v. . Hecht
177 S.E. 399 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Town of Saluda v. County of Polk
176 S.E. 298 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Fisher v. . Finance Co.
156 S.E. 95 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
Carawan v. . Barnett
149 S.E. 740 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
140 S.E. 745, 194 N.C. 732, 1927 N.C. LEXIS 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coble-v-dick-nc-1927.