Hood v. . Mercer

64 S.E. 897, 150 N.C. 699, 1909 N.C. LEXIS 130
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 21, 1909·Published·Cited by 30 cases

Opinion

Brown, J.

The plaintiff is the owner of a judgment, duly docketed on 25 October, 1907, in the Superior Court of Jones County, against the defendant Sherman Mercer. On 14 February, 1908, certain tracts of land in said county were conveyed-by deed executed to said Sherman Mercer and his wife as grantees in the premises as well as the habendum. The said Sherman Mercer and wife have subsequently conveyed certain of the lands by deed to the codefendants Jones and Bryant. *700 The'question presented on this appeal is as to whether the judgment constitutes a lien upon the lands to the discharge of which they can be subjected by execution.

We agree with his Honor that the judgment is no lien on the lands, and that they therefore cannot be sold under execution. The estate of Sherman Mercer and wife is an anomalous one, but it still exists in this State. It would be well for the General Assembly to abolish it as to all future conveyances and let the grantees hold as tenants in common.

While, to some extent, former decisions of this Court in respect to this estate have been modified, we have held, in recent years, that under a conveyance of land in fee to husband and wife they take by entireties, with right of survivorship, and that the interest of neither 'during their joint lives becomes subject to the lien of a docketed judgment. During the wife’s life the husband has no-such interest as is subject to levy and sale to satisfy a judgment against him. Bruce v. Nicholson, 109 N. C., 202; West v. Railroad, 140 N. C., 620. It is'true that where the husband had conveyed the land by deed with warranty without the joinder of the wife, and survived her, his grantee acquired title, but this was by way of estoppel.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

Hood v. . Mercer, 64 S.E. 897, 150 N.C. 699, 1909 N.C. LEXIS 130 (N.C. 1909).

64 S.E. 897 (Hood v. . Mercer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Koster v. Boudreaux
463 N.E.2d 39 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1982)
In Re Weiss
4 B.R. 327 (S.D. New York, 1980)
Young v. Young
259 S.E.2d 348 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1979)
Sawada v. Endo
561 P.2d 1291 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1977)
Hodge v. Hodge
183 S.E.2d 800 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1971)
Masonry Products, Inc. v. Tees
280 F. Supp. 654 (Virgin Islands, 1968)
Council v. Pitt
158 S.E.2d 34 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)
Grabenhofer v. Garrett
131 S.E.2d 675 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)
Harrell v. Powell
112 S.E.2d 81 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Edwards v. Arnold
109 S.E.2d 205 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)
Amick v. Elwood
314 P.2d 944 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1957)
GENERAL AIR CONDITIONING COMPANY v. Douglass
84 S.E.2d 828 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Keel Ex Rel. Keel v. Bailey
198 S.E. 654 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Eastern Bank & Trust Co. v. Broughton
136 S.E. 876 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1927)
Cullom v. Kearns
8 F.2d 437 (Fourth Circuit, 1925)
Southern Distributing Co. v. Carraway
127 S.E. 427 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Johnson v. . Leavitt
125 S.E. 490 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
Davis v. . Bass
124 S.E. 566 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
Martin v. . Lewis
122 S.E. 180 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)