Salassa v. Western Carolina Title & Mortgage Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Salassa v. Western Carolina Title & Mortgage Co.

146 S.E. 83, 196 N.C. 501, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 25

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 9, 1929

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 146 S.E. 83 (Salassa v. Western Carolina Title & Mortgage Co.) 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

Salassa v. Western Carolina Title & Mortgage Co., 146 S.E. 83, 196 N.C. 501, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 25 (N.C. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

It appears upon tbe agreed statement of facts that tbe defendant Maxwell bought a Dodge car from tbe intervener on November 30, 1925,' in tbe State of Pennsylvania, and to secure tbe unpaid part of tbe purchase price executed a conditional sales contract which was never recorded in Pennsylvania or in North Carolina. Maxwell afterwards moved to North Carolina and became indebted to tbe plain *502 tiff on a promissory note. Tbe plaintiff brought suit on the note and attached the car in Buncombe County. The only question is whether the plaintiff’s claim has precedence over that of the intervener. The trial judge held that upon the agreed facts the plaintiff’s claim has priority. In our opinion this conclusion is free from error, and the judgment is

Affirmed.

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

Pee Cueiam.

It appears upon tbe agreed statement of facts that tbe defendant Maxwell bought a Dodge car from tbe intervener on November 30, 1925,' in tbe State of Pennsylvania, and to secure tbe unpaid part of tbe purchase price executed a conditional sales contract which was never recorded in Pennsylvania or in North Carolina. Maxwell afterwards moved to North Carolina and became indebted to tbe plain *502 tiff on a promissory note. Tbe plaintiff brought suit on the note and attached the car in Buncombe County. The only question is whether the plaintiff’s claim has precedence over that of the intervener. The trial judge held that upon the agreed facts the plaintiff’s claim has priority. In our opinion this conclusion is free from error, and the judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 S.E. 83, 196 N.C. 501, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salassa-v-western-carolina-title-mortgage-co-nc-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack