Francis v. Mortgage Security Corp. of America

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Francis v. Mortgage Security Corp. of America

153 S.E. 317, 198 N.C. 734, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 463

DecidedMay 28, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 153 S.E. 317 (Francis v. Mortgage Security Corp. of America) 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

Francis v. Mortgage Security Corp. of America, 153 S.E. 317, 198 N.C. 734, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 463 (N.C. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.,

after stating the case: There is a direct conflict in the evidence as to- whether the plaintiff was employed by the Mortgage Security Corporation of America, and the issue, as framed (conceding its sufficiency), necessarily called for a determination of this question. Hence it was error to direct a verdict thereon in plaintiff’s favor.

*736 Likewise, we think the rulings against tbe intervener were too restrictive of its rights. When property is attached, which is claimed by a stranger to the proceeding, such claimant may intervene and assert his title thereto. C. S., 829 and 840; Bulluck v. Haley, ante, 355.

There are other exceptions appearing on the record, worthy of consideration, but as a new trial must be awarded as to both appellants, we shall not consider them now. They may not arise on another hearing.

New trial.

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

Stacy, C. J.,

after stating the case: There is a direct conflict in the evidence as to- whether the plaintiff was employed by the Mortgage Security Corporation of America, and the issue, as framed (conceding its sufficiency), necessarily called for a determination of this question. Hence it was error to direct a verdict thereon in plaintiff’s favor.

*736 Likewise, we think the rulings against tbe intervener were too restrictive of its rights. When property is attached, which is claimed by a stranger to the proceeding, such claimant may intervene and assert his title thereto. C. S., 829 and 840; Bulluck v. Haley, ante, 355.

There are other exceptions appearing on the record, worthy of consideration, but as a new trial must be awarded as to both appellants, we shall not consider them now. They may not arise on another hearing.

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.E. 317, 198 N.C. 734, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-v-mortgage-security-corp-of-america-nc-1930.