Scott v. Lane

109 N.C. 154
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 15, 1891·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Claek, J.:

According to the defendant’s testimony, he was indebted to no one else when he executed the mortgages, and there is nothing in the pleadings and evidence to indicate that the mortgaged property had theretofore been allotted as a homestead. There was no restriction, therefore, upon the owner’s jus disponendi, and the purchaser, at the sale under the mortgage, acquired a good title as against the defendant mortgagor, subject to the contingent right of dower of the wife if she should survive him. A case exactly in point is Hughes v. Hodges, 102 N. C. 236; Ib., 262.

Upon the evidence, the Court should have instructed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff.

Error.

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

Scott v. Lane, 109 N.C. 154 (N.C. 1891).

109 N.C. 154 (Scott v. Lane) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dalrymple v. . Cole
86 S.E. 988 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1915)
Shackelford v. Morrill.
55 S.E. 83 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)
Rodman v. Robinson.
65 L.R.A. 682 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)
Joyner v. Sugg.
44 S.E. 122 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1903)
Brinkley v. Brinkley.
39 S.E. 38 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1901)
Thomas v. Fulford
117 N.C. 667 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1895)