Orange County Building & Loan Ass'n v. Jones

197 S.E. 618, 214 N.C. 30, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 257

Opinion

Pee Ctjexam.

Tbe legal principles involved in tbis case are -very thoroughly discussed in Bateman v. Sterrett, 201 N. C., 59, 159 S. E., 14, and in tbis case there is a full citation of authority which we think substantially covers tbe controverted principles of law in tbe present case. We have examined chapter 529, Public Laws of 1933 — Code 1935, see. 437 (a) — and find no constitutional difficulty in its application to tbe facts of tbis ease. We think all tbe substantial rights of tbe parties have been sufficiently protected in tbe cited statute, and its application constitutes no impairment of tbe obligation of plaintiff's contract. Plaintiff, having set tbe statute in motion by its foreclosure sale, neglected to bring action upon tbe note within one year thereafter, and tbis action is therefore barred.

Tbe judgment is

Affirmed.