Menzel v. Hinton.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Action by P. T. Menzel and others against C. E. & W. E. Plinton beard by Judge M. H. Justice, at December (Special) Term, 1902, of the Superior Court of Camden County. From a judgment for the defendants, the plaintiffs appealed.
1DissentDouglas, J.
I am forced to dissent from the opinion of the court for several reasons, principally because it is in direct conflict with the opinion of this court in Hutaff v. Adrian, 112 N. C., 259. In that case this court says: “Upon the allegations in the complaint, taken as true, the defendant’s bond and mortgage are alike barred by the statute of limitations. A sale under such mortgage would carry to the purchaser no title. The plaintiff mortgagor being in possession has a full defense to an action for ejectment when brought by the purchaser. The court will therefore, not interfere by injunction…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Kornegay v. . SpicerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1877
- Hedrick v. . ByerlySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
- Hutaff v. . AdrianSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
- Mosby v. . HodgeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1877
- Smith v. Parker.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.