Currie v. Southern Manufacturers Club, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Currie v. Southern Manufacturers Club, Inc.

185 S.E. 666, 210 N.C. 150, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 39

DecidedMay 20, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 185 S.E. 666 (Currie v. Southern Manufacturers Club, Inc.) 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

Currie v. Southern Manufacturers Club, Inc., 185 S.E. 666, 210 N.C. 150, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 39 (N.C. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

ConNOR, J.

When the property of the defendant in this action came into the possession of the receiver appointed by the court, neither the city of Charlotte nor Mecklenburg County had a lien on said property for the taxes which had been theretofore levied against the defendant, and which were then unpaid. No levy had been made on said property for said taxes by the tax collector of the city of Charlotte or by the sheriff of Mecklenburg County. It is provided by statute that “taxes shall not be a lien upon personal property but from the levy thereon.” C. S., 7986. Coltrane v. Donnell, 203 N. C., 515, 166 S. E., 377; Carstarphen v. Plymouth, 186 N. C., 90, 118 S. E., 905. The title to defendant’s property vested in the receiver, under the orders of the court, free and clear of any lien for taxes then due to the city of Charlotte or to Mecklenburg County.

Neither the tax collector of the city nor the sheriff of the county levied upon said property for the unpaid taxes after the same came into *153 the possession of the receiver, and before its sale by the receiver, under the orders of the court, as each was authorized to do by statute. C. S., 1220; C. S., 8003. "When the property was sold, under the orders of the court, the purchaser acquired title to same free and clear of any lien for the taxes due by the defendant at the date of the appointment of the receiver. See Garstarphen v. Plymouth, supra.

As neither the city of Charlotte nor Mecklenburg County bad a lien on the property at the time it was sold by the receiver, they have no lien on the proceeds of the sale now in the possession of the defendant. The service of executions on the receiver and on the bank in which the proceeds of the sale were deposited to the credit of the receiver were ineffectual for the purpose of giving the claims of the city and of the county priority over other claims against the defendant. See Shelby v. Tiddy, 118 N. C., 792, 24 S. E., 521; Alexander v. Farrow, 151 N. C., 320, 66 S. E., 209.

There is error in tbe order in this cause directing tbe receiver to pay tbe taxes levied against tbe defendant prior to bis appointment as preferential claims. Tbe order is therefore

Reversed.

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

ConNOR, J.

When the property of the defendant in this action came into the possession of the receiver appointed by the court, neither the city of Charlotte nor Mecklenburg County had a lien on said property for the taxes which had been theretofore levied against the defendant, and which were then unpaid. No levy had been made on said property for said taxes by the tax collector of the city of Charlotte or by the sheriff of Mecklenburg County. It is provided by statute that “taxes shall not be a lien upon personal property but from the levy thereon.” C. S., 7986. Coltrane v. Donnell, 203 N. C., 515, 166 S. E., 377; Carstarphen v. Plymouth, 186 N. C., 90, 118 S. E., 905. The title to defendant’s property vested in the receiver, under the orders of the court, free and clear of any lien for taxes then due to the city of Charlotte or to Mecklenburg County.

Neither the tax collector of the city nor the sheriff of the county levied upon said property for the unpaid taxes after the same came into *153 the possession of the receiver, and before its sale by the receiver, under the orders of the court, as each was authorized to do by statute. C. S., 1220; C. S., 8003. "When the property was sold, under the orders of the court, the purchaser acquired title to same free and clear of any lien for the taxes due by the defendant at the date of the appointment of the receiver. See Garstarphen v. Plymouth, supra.

As neither the city of Charlotte nor Mecklenburg County bad a lien on the property at the time it was sold by the receiver, they have no lien on the proceeds of the sale now in the possession of the defendant. The service of executions on the receiver and on the bank in which the proceeds of the sale were deposited to the credit of the receiver were ineffectual for the purpose of giving the claims of the city and of the county priority over other claims against the defendant. See Shelby v. Tiddy, 118 N. C., 792, 24 S. E., 521; Alexander v. Farrow, 151 N. C., 320, 66 S. E., 209.

There is error in tbe order in this cause directing tbe receiver to pay tbe taxes levied against tbe defendant prior to bis appointment as preferential claims. Tbe order is therefore

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 S.E. 666, 210 N.C. 150, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/currie-v-southern-manufacturers-club-inc-nc-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack