Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

181 N.C. 40

106 S.E 137

House v. . Parker

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 2, 1921

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1921-03-02

Appeal by defendant from Lyon, J., at August Term, 1920, of Halifax. This was a civil action for damages, tried upon an alleged wrongful conversion of plaintiff’s property by the defendant, Surry Parker. In July 1916, plaintiff, a resident of Halifax County, purchased from the defendant, who resided at Pinetown, N. C., a steam logging loading .outfit upon a retained-title contract.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1921-03-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 1974

5 state decisions

30192119301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Stagy, J.

¶1 Sec. 2587, C. S., relating to tbe foreclosure of conditional sales, provides as follows: “In all sales of personal property wherein the title is retained by the seller to secure the purchase money, or any part thereof, and no power' of sale is conferred, and default is made in the payment of said obligation by the purchaser, then in all such cases it is lawful for the owner of such debt thereby secured, without an order of court, to sell such property, or so much thereof as may be necessary to pay off said indebtedness, at public auction for cash, after first giving-twenty days notice at three or more public places in the county wherein the sale is to be made, and apply the proceeds of such sale to the discharge of said debt, interest on the same, and costs of foreclosure, and pay any surplus to the person legally entitled thereto. Before making any such sale, in addition to the advertisement above required, the owner of said debt shall, at least ten days before the day of sale, mail a copy of the notice of sale to the last known postoflice address of the original purchaser or his assigns.”

¶2 Under a proper construction of this' statute, and on the record, we think his Honor erred in charging the jury that the defendant could not sell the property in question without the consent and direction of the plaintiff. It is true the contract contains no express power of sale; but the general laws of the State in force at the time of its execution and performance enter into and become as much a part of the contract as if they were expressly referred to or incorporated in its terms. O’Kelly v. Williams, 84 N. C., 281; Graves v. Howard, 159 N. C., 594, and Van Huffman v. Quincy, 4 Wallace, 552.

¶3 There are other exceptions worthy of consideration, but as the case goes back for a new trial, and as they may not occur on another hearing, we refrain from further comment.

¶4 New trial.

/181/nc/40 · .json · Public domain