Gallop v. Elizabeth City Milling Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Gallop v. Elizabeth City Milling Co.

100 S.E. 130, 178 N.C. 1, 1919 N.C. LEXIS 372

DecidedSeptember 10, 1919

StatusPublished

This text of 100 S.E. 130 (Gallop v. Elizabeth City Milling Co.) 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

Gallop v. Elizabeth City Milling Co., 100 S.E. 130, 178 N.C. 1, 1919 N.C. LEXIS 372 (N.C. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Claeic, C. J.

The mortgage described the property as follows: “My entire crop of Irish and sweet potatoes, com, etc., grown in the year 1916 on the lands of Thomas Harris, being one-half of the crop grown on said land.” This was a sufficient description. It was not necessary to mention in detail every article of the crop. The words “Irish and sweet potatoes, corn, etc.,” were sufficient to indicate that all the crop of every description was embraced in the mortgage, and that the lien was not limited to the articles specifically named. •

The description of the land on which the crop was to be raised was “the lands of Thomas Harris,” and certainly extended to the crops raised by the mortgagor during 1916 on the lands of said Harris in the county of Currituck, in which the mortgage was registered.

The word “etc.” or “et cetera” means other crops. In R. R. v. Metcalf, 81 Am. Dec., 541, it was held that a resolution of the board of directors of a railroad company authorizing a mortgage of the road and its property, “etc.,” embraced its franchises, rights, and privileges. Besides, in this case the clause at the end, “being one-half of the crop grown on said lands,” clearly indicated an intention that the mortgage should embrace one-half of the crops of every description.

The point was further taken in this Court, though not raised by exception on the trial, that the complaint was insufficient in that it did not recite that the mortgage was registered before the cotton was bought by the mill company. If the complaint on this ground did not state a cause of action the exception could be taken for the first time in this Court, of course, but the allegation that the mortgage was “duly registered” would indicate that it was registered in due time. Indeed, a failure to allege that it was registered at all would not be fatal.

Reversed.

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

Claeic, C. J.

The mortgage described the property as follows: “My entire crop of Irish and sweet potatoes, com, etc., grown in the year 1916 on the lands of Thomas Harris, being one-half of the crop grown on said land.” This was a sufficient description. It was not necessary to mention in detail every article of the crop. The words “Irish and sweet potatoes, corn, etc.,” were sufficient to indicate that all the crop of every description was embraced in the mortgage, and that the lien was not limited to the articles specifically named. •

The description of the land on which the crop was to be raised was “the lands of Thomas Harris,” and certainly extended to the crops raised by the mortgagor during 1916 on the lands of said Harris in the county of Currituck, in which the mortgage was registered.

The word “etc.” or “et cetera” means other crops. In R. R. v. Metcalf, 81 Am. Dec., 541, it was held that a resolution of the board of directors of a railroad company authorizing a mortgage of the road and its property, “etc.,” embraced its franchises, rights, and privileges. Besides, in this case the clause at the end, “being one-half of the crop grown on said lands,” clearly indicated an intention that the mortgage should embrace one-half of the crops of every description.

The point was further taken in this Court, though not raised by exception on the trial, that the complaint was insufficient in that it did not recite that the mortgage was registered before the cotton was bought by the mill company. If the complaint on this ground did not state a cause of action the exception could be taken for the first time in this Court, of course, but the allegation that the mortgage was “duly registered” would indicate that it was registered in due time. Indeed, a failure to allege that it was registered at all would not be fatal.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.E. 130, 178 N.C. 1, 1919 N.C. LEXIS 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gallop-v-elizabeth-city-milling-co-nc-1919.