Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

Bunting v. . Jones

Bunting v. . Jones, 78 N.C. 242 (N.C. 1878)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
1878-01-05
Topic
general

Reads, J. The plaintiff purchased and paid for the land in question and had the deed made to defendant, Henry C. *243 ■Jones, under a yerbal agreement that the plaintiff was to hold the deed., and that concurrently with the taking the deed from the vendor to the defendant Henry C. Jones, he .and his wife were to execute a mortgage deed to the plaintiff, to secure the purchase money. The defendant Henry O. Jones did execute the mortgage deed and delivered it to ■the plaintiff, but his wife, the feme defendant refused, to Join ; and this action is brought to recover judgment for the purchase money, and to have the land sold to satisfy it.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Bunting v. . Jones. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
21 opinions
BUNTINGv. JONES,78 N.C. 242(1878)
JOHN N. BUNTING v. HENRY C. JONES, WIFE AND OTHERS.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
(January Term, 1878.)
Homestead — Purchase Money — Wife's Interest.

Where the plaintiff purchased and paid for the land in question, and had the deed made to the defendant J. under a verbal agreement that the plaintiff was to hold the deed, and that concurrently with making the deed to J., he and his wife were to execute a mortgage to the plaintiff to secure the purchase money; J. did execute the mortgage, but his wife refused to join:Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the amount due, and that the land be sold to satisfy it.Held further, that in such case no title vested in J., and his wife acquired no dower or homestead rights.Held further, that plaintiff's demand is for the purchase money, as against which homestead rights do not prevail.
APPEAL fromBuxton, J., at June Special Term, 1877, of WAKE.

This action was brought to recover the purchase money for a house and lot in the city of Raleigh, and the defendants objected to the judgment rendered for the plaintiff in the court below, for that it was adjudged that the title to the same (which came to them in the manner set forth in the opinion of this Court) was not in the defendant Jones, and that the premises be sold to satisfy the debt; and insisted that the judgment should have been only for the recovery of the debt. And from said judgment the defendants appealed.
George H. Snow for plaintiff.T. M. Argo and Battle Mordecai for defendants.
READE, J.
The plaintiff purchased and paid for the land in question and had the deed made to defendant Henry C. Jones, under a verbal agreement that the plaintiff was to hold the deed, and that concurrently with the taking the deed from the vendor to the (243) defendant Henry C. Jones, he and his wife were to execute a mortgage deed to the plaintiff, to secure the purchase money. The defendantPage 162Henry C. Jones did execute the mortgage deed and delivered it to the plaintiff, but his wife, thefemedefendant, refused to join; and this action is brought to recover judgment for the purchase money, and to have the land sold to satisfy it.

The plaintiff is entitled to his judgment and sale.

The defendants object to the sale for the reason that the deed which was made to Henry C. Jones vested the title in him, although but for a moment, and thereby his wife, thefemedefendant, became invested with dower and homestead rights. This is not so, for two reasons:

1. The deed from the vendor to Jones, and his mortgage to the plaintiff, were to be, and were, concurrent acts. And concurrent acts are to be considered as one act. The title didvest, but it did notrest, in Jones, but "like the borealis' race, that flits are you can point its place." And it was as if the title had passed directly from the vendor to the plaintiff. But even if this were not so, and if the deed had been made and delivered to Jones, and he had made no mortgage to plaintiff, yet under the agreement aforesaid, and the plaintiff's money having paid for the land, there would have been an equity in the plaintiff which would have entitled him to call for the legal estate, unaffected by dower or homestead. It was not intended to give the defendant the land, and he paid nothing for it. How, then, can he or his wife claim it? But if this were not so, still —

2. The plaintiff's demand is for the purchase money, as against which homestead rights do not prevail.

The defendants insist that the plaintiff did not pay the purchase money, and thereby become substituted to the rights of the vendor; but that he (plaintiff) loaned the defendant the money with which to pay it, and that the plaintiff's demand is for an ordinary debt. But (244) the fact is stated to be otherwise.

We have not mentioned the intervention of Sion H. Rogers as it was not necessary for elucidation.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed.Cited: Moring v. Dickinson,85 N.C. 469;Burns v. McGregor,90 N.C. 225;Sawyer v. Northan,112 N.C. 267;Belvin v. Paper Co.,123 N.C. 145;Weil v. Casey,125 N.C. 359;Rhea v. Rawls,131 N.C. 454;Suttonv. Jenkins,147 N.C. 15;Hinton v. Hicks,156 N.C. 25;Gann v. Spencer,167 N.C. 431;Trust Co. v. Sterchie,169 N.C. 23.Page 163