Maddox v. . Arp

19 S.E. 665, 114 N.C. 585
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 5, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 19 S.E. 665 (Maddox v. . Arp) 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
Maddox v. . Arp, 19 S.E. 665, 114 N.C. 585 (N.C. 1894).

Opinion

Shepherd, C. J.:

It is provided by cli. 147, Acts 1885, that “Xo conveyance of land nor contract to convey, or lease of land for more than three years, shall be valid to pass any property as against creditors or purchasers for a valuable consideration from the donor, bargainor or lessor but from the registration thereof within the count}'' where the land lieth.” The present case not being within the proviso of the act, actual notice of a prior unregistered contract to convey cannot, in the absence of fraud, affect the rights of a subsequent purchaser for value whose deed is duly registered according to law. The allegations of fraud having been withdrawn, the only question to be determined is whether there was anything on the books of registration which could affect the defendants Briscoes, Reney and Swepson with 'notice of the claim of the 'plaintiffs. The plaintiffs took a mortgage from Arp and Arp had nothing but an unregistered contract to convey from Kil-patrick. The said defendants purchased from Hyatt, who had a clear registered chain of title from Kilpatrick, and all that they had to do was to follow “up the stream of title” as it appeared of record; and if it w^as unbroken and they found no registration of a contract of sale from *589 any of the holders of the legal title they could not be compelled to look over the whole records for the mortgage from Arp to the plaintiffs, when the records would not have disclosed any connection of Arp with the line of title.

There, is error. Reversed.

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

Related

Stegall v. Robinson
344 S.E.2d 803 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1986)
Schuman v. Roger Baker & Associates, Inc.
319 S.E.2d 308 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1984)
Dulin v. Williams
79 S.E.2d 213 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
United States v. Hiawassee Lumber Co.
202 F. 35 (Fourth Circuit, 1912)
Wood v. . Lewey
69 S.E. 268 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1910)
Wood v. Tinsley.
51 S.E. 59 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
Collins v. Davis.
43 S.E. 579 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1903)
Patterson v. . Mills
28 S.E. 368 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Hooker v. . Nichols
21 S.E. 207 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1895)
Truitt v. . Grandy
20 S.E. 293 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 S.E. 665, 114 N.C. 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maddox-v-arp-nc-1894.