McNair v. . Pope

Supreme Court of North Carolina

McNair v. . Pope

10 S.E. 252, 104 N.C. 350

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 5, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 S.E. 252 (McNair v. . Pope) 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

McNair v. . Pope, 10 S.E. 252, 104 N.C. 350 (N.C. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

*353 Shepherd, J.

— after stating the facts: His ITonor very properly allowed A. &W. McQueen, the agricultural lienees, to intervene and assert their alleged rights in the fund held by the receiver. It is true that there had been a final determination of the issues raised upon the pleadings, but no order had been made as to the rents which had been collected by the receiver, and so far as these were concerned, the cause was still open for further directions.

The order of reference to the Clerk, and the refusal of the Court to direct that the entire fund should be paid to the defendants, were correct. There was error, however, in withholding from the defendants the rents for the years 1887 and 1888. These should have been paid to the defendants, as the agricultural lienees can, in no aspect of the case, be entitled to any part of them, their lien only covering the . products of the year 1886.

It appears from the record, and is conceded here, that the plaintiffs were in possession of the land, claiming it as theirown, until the receiver entered. It is very clear that the lienees are entitled to be paid for any advances they may have made up to that time, and the amount of these will be, ascertained by the Clerk under the order of reference.

If there were any advances after the action of the receiver, the circumstances under which they were made should be reported, so that the Court can determine whether the lienees are entitled to be paid for the same

Modified and affirmed.

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

*353 Shepherd, J.

— after stating the facts: His ITonor very properly allowed A. &W. McQueen, the agricultural lienees, to intervene and assert their alleged rights in the fund held by the receiver. It is true that there had been a final determination of the issues raised upon the pleadings, but no order had been made as to the rents which had been collected by the receiver, and so far as these were concerned, the cause was still open for further directions.

The order of reference to the Clerk, and the refusal of the Court to direct that the entire fund should be paid to the defendants, were correct. There was error, however, in withholding from the defendants the rents for the years 1887 and 1888. These should have been paid to the defendants, as the agricultural lienees can, in no aspect of the case, be entitled to any part of them, their lien only covering the . products of the year 1886.

It appears from the record, and is conceded here, that the plaintiffs were in possession of the land, claiming it as theirown, until the receiver entered. It is very clear that the lienees are entitled to be paid for any advances they may have made up to that time, and the amount of these will be, ascertained by the Clerk under the order of reference.

If there were any advances after the action of the receiver, the circumstances under which they were made should be reported, so that the Court can determine whether the lienees are entitled to be paid for the same

Modified and affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 S.E. 252, 104 N.C. 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnair-v-pope-nc-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack