Hood, Comr. of Banks v. . MacClesfield

183 S.E. 404, 209 N.C. 280, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 452

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The demurrer was properly sustained, for, as to the receiver who represents the creditors of the insolvent corporation, the alleged parol agreement to convey is void. Observer Co. v. Little, 175 N. C., 42, 94 S. E., 526; Mfg. Co. v. Price, 195 N. C., 602, 143 S. E., 208. Even if the conveyance had been executed, it would not be valid as against creditors and purchasers for value, “but from the registration thereof within the county where the land lies.” C. S., 3309; Eaton v. Doub, 190 N. C., 14, 128 S. E., 494.

The principles announced in Spence v. Pottery Co., 185 N. C., 218, 117 S. E., 32, have no application to the facts of the present record.

Affirmed.

Devin, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.