Gavin v. . Matthews

67 S.E. 478, 152 N.C. 195, 1910 N.C. LEXIS 237
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 23, 1910
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 67 S.E. 478 (Gavin v. . Matthews) 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
Gavin v. . Matthews, 67 S.E. 478, 152 N.C. 195, 1910 N.C. LEXIS 237 (N.C. 1910).

Opinion

BROWN, J.

The plaintiff brings this action to recover possession of a stock of goods sold by him to defendants and described in a mortgage for the purchase money, securing the payment of twenty-six notes dated 3 April, 1908, in the sum of $25 each, except one for $51.55. These notes matured on 1st day of each month, and there is a provision in the mortgage that in case of default on any one note all shall at once become due, and that the plaintiff may at once take possession and foreclose.

According to the plaintiff's evidence, the July and August (1908) notes, both of which matured before the commencement of this action, were not paid, although demanded.

The only defense attempted that we have been able to discover in the record is that the July note was paid, but by mistake defendants received for it from plaintiff the note due 1 August, 1910. There is no evidence or claim that the note due August, 1908, was paid. The right to foreclose the mortgage undoubtedly accrued at once upon such default.

*196 There is no evidence that the foreclosure was improperly or oppressively conducted, or that plaintiff bought at his own sale, as in Smith v. French, post, and 141 N. C., 1; but if there had been it would not avail anything, as under the form of the second issue the plaintiff is charged with the actual value of the goods when taken.

The whole controversy plainly involves only questions of fact, and they have been settled by the jury. We have been unable to discover any serious question of law presented by this appeal, or, with perfect deference for the views of the learned and able counsel for appellants, to comprehend exactly why it should have been brought to this Court.

No error.

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

Related

Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp. v. Saunders
70 S.E.2d 176 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 S.E. 478, 152 N.C. 195, 1910 N.C. LEXIS 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gavin-v-matthews-nc-1910.