Harrelson v. . Cox

178 S.E. 361, 207 N.C. 651, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 235
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 28, 1935·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

We think there was error in dismissing the action as upon demurrer to the complaint. Where a mortgagee takes from his mortgagor a deed for the mortgaged premises, under circumstances such as here alleged, the transaction is open to investigation, with the burden of fairness upon the mortgagee. Hinton v. West, post, 708; Jones v. Williams, 176 N. C., 245, 96 S. E., 1036; Cole v. Boyd, 175 N. C., 555, 95 S. E., 778; Jones v. Pullen, 115 N. C., 465, 20 S. E., 624. In this jurisdiction the principle is often referred to as the “doctrine of McLeod v. Bullard ” 84 N. C., 516, approved on rehearing, 86 N. C., 210: “Where a mortgagee buys the equity of redemption of his mortgagor, the law presumes fraud, and the burden of proof is upon the mortgagee to show the bona jides of the transaction.”

We are not advised as to what admissions were made by counsel in response to the court’s interrogatories, but the complaint would seem to be good as against a demurrer. Dix-Downing v. White, 206 N. C., 567, 174 S. E., 451.

Reversed.

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

Harrelson v. . Cox, 178 S.E. 361, 207 N.C. 651, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 235 (N.C. 1935).

178 S.E. 361 (Harrelson v. . Cox) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carroll v. Rountree
243 S.E.2d 821 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1978)
Cross v. Beckwith
192 S.E.2d 64 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1972)
McNeill v. . McNeill
25 S.E.2d 615 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
Massengill v. . Oliver
19 S.E.2d 253 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
O'Briant v. . Lee
200 S.E. 865 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Gurganus v. . McLawhorn
193 S.E. 844 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)