Legal Opinion

Jonas v. Home Mortgage Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided July 12, 1933PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOlaRksoN, J.

The question involved: Was the lower court justified in directing a verdict that the plaintiffs recover nothing of the defendants? We think so.

This is an action in a court of equity, brought by plaintiffs to restrain defendants from selling their land under a deed of trust. Miller v. Dunn, 188 N. C., 397; Ripple v. Mortgage Corp., 193 N. C., 422; Pugh v. Scarboro, 200 N. C., 59; Clark v. Hood System, 200 N. C., 635.

Plaintiffs borrowed $7,000, made note and bond payable to bearer with 6% interest, on 15 August, 1927, and secured same by deed of trust on certain real estate. The plaintiffs made…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Ripple v. Mortgage & Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  2. Planters National Bank of Virginia v. Wysong & Miles Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  3. Waters v. GarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  4. Bledsoe v. . Nixon .Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1873
  5. Miller v. . DunnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Smith v. . BryantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  2. Bailey v. . InmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  3. Buchanan v. Carolina Mortgage Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  4. Thomason v. . SwensonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API