Rudasill v. . Cabaniss

33 S.E.2d 475, 225 N.C. 87, 1945 N.C. LEXIS 259
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 28, 1945
StatusPublished

This text of 33 S.E.2d 475 (Rudasill v. . Cabaniss) 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
Rudasill v. . Cabaniss, 33 S.E.2d 475, 225 N.C. 87, 1945 N.C. LEXIS 259 (N.C. 1945).

Opinion

Barnhill, J.

Tbe male defendant purchased certain land and tbe grantor, at bis request, made deed to tbe defendants as tenants by entirety. Tbe grantor in turn accepted an open, unsecured note signed only by tbe husband in payment or as evidence of tbe unpaid purchase price. It is this obligation that bas come into tbe possession of plaintiff. Upon it she bases ber cause of action. She is bound by its terms. Tbe feme defendant is not a maker and cannot be held liable for its payment.

Concede, as contended, that tbe note is conditional payment only and we have left an open, unsecured debt for tbe purchase price — -a debt of tbe purchaser, Charlie Cabaniss, Jr, who, under tbe original contract, was tbe sole obligor.

Tbe conveyance of an interest to tbe wife, tbe husband having paid or agreed to pay tbe purchase money, is presumed to be a gift from tbe husband to bis wife. Ricks v. Wilson, 154 N. C., 282, 70 S. E., 476; Flanner v. Butler, 131 N. C., 151; Trust Co. v. Black, 198 N. C., 219, 151 S. E., 269; Nelson v. Nelson, 176 N. C., 191, 96 S. E., 986; Tire Co. v. Lester, 190 N. C., 411, 130 S. E., 45.

Even so, plaintiff insists that tbe feme defendant received a part of tbe consideration and that simple equity requires that she pay, at least to tbe extent of tbe interest received. This contention is untenable.

Some jurisdictions, it is true, recognize and enforce an equitable lien for purchase money. But there is no lien for purchase money in North Carolina. Womble v. Battle, 38 N. C., 182; Blevins v. Barker, 75 N. C., 436; White v. Jones, 92 N. C., 388; Lumber Co. v. Lumber Co., 150 N. C., 282, 63 S. E., 1045; Jarrett v. Holland, 213 N. C., 428, 196 S. E., 332.

“It is a natural equity that when a vendor sells bis land, that be should have a lien upon it for tbe security of bis purchase money . . . tbe law tenders it to him in tbe shape of a mortgage or deed of trust properly registered. If be do not choose to avail himself of it, it is his own fault . . .” Womble v. Battle, supra. A vendor cannot reserve a *89 lien unless be take bis security in writing and bave it registered. Blevins v. Barker, supra.

Tbe judgment below is

Affirmed.

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

Related

Blevins v. . Barker
75 N.C. 436 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1876)
Nelson v. . Nelson
96 S.E. 986 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1918)
Womble v. . Battle
38 N.C. 182 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1844)
Jarrett v. . Holland
196 S.E. 314 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Black
151 S.E. 269 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
Flanner v. Butler.
42 S.E. 557 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1902)
Hickson Lumber Co. v. Gay Lumber Co.
63 S.E. 1045 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
White v. . Jones
92 N.C. 388 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1885)
Ricks v. . Wilson
70 S.E. 476 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1911)
Kelly Springfield Tire Co. v. Lester
130 S.E. 5 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Ricks v. Wilson
154 N.C. 282 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 S.E.2d 475, 225 N.C. 87, 1945 N.C. LEXIS 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudasill-v-cabaniss-nc-1945.