Mercer v. . Bullock

131 S.E. 580, 191 N.C. 216, 1926 N.C. LEXIS 41

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: February 17, 1926
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

During the year 1923, tbe defendant was a tenant on plaintiffs’ farm,’ the rent for which amounted to $900 and became due and payable 1 November of tbat year. On 10 September, 1923, tbe farm in question was sold under mortgage, and tbe interveners, trustees of tbe estate of R. H. Ricks, became tbe purchasers at said sale, deed for same being delivered to them on 21 September, 1923, and duly registered seven days thereafter. "Who is entitled to the rent which fell due'l November, 1923, tbe plaintiffs or tbe interveners? Tbis is tbe question for decision.

It is established by tbe decisions in tbis and other jurisdictions tbat, in tbe absence of a statute governing tbe matter, when mortgaged lands are in tbe possession of a tenant, and a foreclosure is bad during tbe term of tbe lease, nothing else appearing, tbe mortgagor is entitled to collect all tbe rent that is due at tbe time of sale, and tbe purchaser is entitled to collect all that subsequently falls due. Page v. Lashley, 15 Ind., 152. Tbe title to tbe rent is dependent on that of tbe property, hence a sale of tbe demised premises passes title to tbe accruing rent and gives tbe purchaser tbe right to collect tbe rent falling due after tbe purchase. Mixon v. Coffield, 24 N. C., 301; Lewis v. Wilkins, 62 N. C., 307; Kornegay v. Collier, 65 N. C., 69; Rogers v. McKenzie, ibid., 218; Lancashire v. Mason, 75 N. C., 459; Holly v. Holly, 94 N. C., 674; University v. Borden, 132 N. C., p. 486; Dixon v. Nicolls, 39 Ill., 372; Chisholm v. Spullock, 87 Ga., 665.

Sections 2345 and 2346 of tbe Consolidated Statutes, relating to tbe apportionment of rent where tbe lease or right to payment is terminated by death or other uncertain event, have no application to tbe facts of tbe instant case. Spruill v. Arrington, 109 N. C., 195.

Nor is tbe case of Pate v. Gaitley, 183 N. C., 262, at variance with our present position, for there tbe rent accruing after sale was tbe subject of specific agreement between tbe parties.

There was error in apportioning tbe rent between plaintiffs and inter-veners; no part of it bad accrued at tbe time of tbe sale under foreclosure; it all fell due, under tbe jury’s finding, after tbe interveners became tbe owners of tbe land; they are entitled to tbe rent falling due after their purchase. Upon tbe verdict and facts agreed, tbe inter-veners are entitled to judgment for tbe entire rent.

Error.