Hinkle, Craig & Co. v. Greene

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hinkle, Craig & Co. v. Greene

34 S.E. 554, 125 N.C. 489, 1899 N.C. LEXIS 245

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 19, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 34 S.E. 554 (Hinkle, Craig & Co. v. Greene) 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

Hinkle, Craig & Co. v. Greene, 34 S.E. 554, 125 N.C. 489, 1899 N.C. LEXIS 245 (N.C. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Eaihcuoth, O. J.

This case was heard upon agreed facts, viz.:

1. That in March and April, 1898, the defendant’s intestate purchased certain personal property from plaintiffs, and gave his promissory notes for the purchase money, in which notes it is recited that the title (of said property) remains in the plaintiffs until the whole be paid.

■ 2. That said intestate died November 2, 1898, and on November 5, 1898, said notes were duly registered in Register’s office in Watauga County, and soon thereafter the defend *490 ant caused her year's allowance to- be assigned to- her, and the allotment includes the personal property purchased as above stated, for which said notes were given, and on December 15, 1898, the defendant was duly appointed administratrix on her said husband’s estate.

The Code, sec. 1215, requires that, “All conditional sales of personal property, in which the title is retained by the bar-gainor, shall be reduced to writing and registered in the same manner, for the same fees, and with the same legal effect as is provided for chattel mortgages.” The question then arises, which has the better title, the plaintiff by his registration of said notes or the defendant by the assignment of her year’s allowance? The case must be governed by tire principle announced in Williams v. Jones, 95 N. C., 504. In that case, the chattel mortgage was registered after the death of the mortgagor, and the allotment of the widow’s year’s allowance included the mortgaged property. It was held that the mortgage may be registered after the death of the mortgagor; also, that the widow’s ■ right to her allowance was valid against the general creditors of her deceased husband,- but as to the liens and equities she takes the property in the same plight that her husband held it, and therefore subject to the mortgage lien, because the registered conditional sale is attended with “the same legal effect as is provided for chattel mortgages,” and, besides, is good between these parties.

This is the only question for us, to be found in the record.

Affirmed.

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

Eaihcuoth, O. J.

This case was heard upon agreed facts, viz.:

1. That in March and April, 1898, the defendant’s intestate purchased certain personal property from plaintiffs, and gave his promissory notes for the purchase money, in which notes it is recited that the title (of said property) remains in the plaintiffs until the whole be paid.

■ 2. That said intestate died November 2, 1898, and on November 5, 1898, said notes were duly registered in Register’s office in Watauga County, and soon thereafter the defend *490 ant caused her year's allowance to- be assigned to- her, and the allotment includes the personal property purchased as above stated, for which said notes were given, and on December 15, 1898, the defendant was duly appointed administratrix on her said husband’s estate.

The Code, sec. 1215, requires that, “All conditional sales of personal property, in which the title is retained by the bar-gainor, shall be reduced to writing and registered in the same manner, for the same fees, and with the same legal effect as is provided for chattel mortgages.” The question then arises, which has the better title, the plaintiff by his registration of said notes or the defendant by the assignment of her year’s allowance? The case must be governed by tire principle announced in Williams v. Jones, 95 N. C., 504. In that case, the chattel mortgage was registered after the death of the mortgagor, and the allotment of the widow’s year’s allowance included the mortgaged property. It was held that the mortgage may be registered after the death of the mortgagor; also, that the widow’s ■ right to her allowance was valid against the general creditors of her deceased husband,- but as to the liens and equities she takes the property in the same plight that her husband held it, and therefore subject to the mortgage lien, because the registered conditional sale is attended with “the same legal effect as is provided for chattel mortgages,” and, besides, is good between these parties.

This is the only question for us, to be found in the record.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 S.E. 554, 125 N.C. 489, 1899 N.C. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinkle-craig-co-v-greene-nc-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack