Green v. Sherrod
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was a civil ACTION, tried before Connor, J., at April Term, 1889, of the Superior Court of FraNKLIN County. The following issue was, by consent, submitted to the jury: “Was the deed set out in the complaint intended as a mortgage.
Read the full summary
This was a civil ACTION, tried before Connor, J., at April Term, 1889, of the Superior Court of FraNKLIN County. The following issue was, by consent, submitted to the jury: “Was the deed set out in the complaint intended as a mortgage. If so, was clause for redemption omitted by mistake of the draftsman ? The defendant introduced B F. Bullock, who, after being sworn, testified: “I wrote the deed from defendant to Green & Ryland during the year 1875; a note was executed by defendant to the grantee about the time the deed was made; the debt had been contracted before then; to secure a.certain…
1Opinion of the CourtAvery, J.
after stating the facts: In Norris v. McLam, 104 N. C., 159, Justice Shepherd, delivering the opinion of the Court, says: “It is well settled, that in order to convert a deed, absolute on its face, into a mortgage, it must be alleged, and of course proved, that the clause of redemption was omitted by reason of ignorance, mistake, fraud, or undue advantage.” Egerton v. Jones, 102 N. C., 278.
There is no error. • Affirmed.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Norris v. . McLamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- Egerton v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
3Cited by7 opinions
- Helms v. Helms.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Sprague v. . BondSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
- Waddell v. . AycockSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
- Davenport v. . PhelpsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Jones v. . NorrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.