Royster v. . Farrell
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This is a civil ACTION, tried before Hoke, J., and a jury, at Fall Term, 1894, of Chatham Superior Court, for the foreclosure of the mortgage described in the complaint. Among other defences the defendants pleaded the statute of limitations.
Read the full summary
This is a civil ACTION, tried before Hoke, J., and a jury, at Fall Term, 1894, of Chatham Superior Court, for the foreclosure of the mortgage described in the complaint. Among other defences the defendants pleaded the statute of limitations. The following issues were submitted to the jury: ' “ 1. Was plaintiff duly and properly appointed and qualified as receiver of Ellington, Royster & Co. ? “ 2. Has there been a payment by defendant on the note and mortgage at any time within ten years next before action brought? “ 3. Has there been any binding acknowledgment in writing of said note and…
1Opinion of the Court
Burwell, J.:
The writing set out in the record seems to us to be an acknowledgment that the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee existed between the parties who signed it— that F. M. Farrell was at its date the mortgagor of Ellington, Royster & Co. The admission of the fact that that relation existed was, of course, an acknowledgment on Farrell’s part that the debt secured by the mortgage had not been paid. It is, also, it seems to us, a promise to pay the mortgage debt. At the time this writing was signed the mortgagor gave to the mortgagee an acceptance for $350 (a sum that exceeded the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hill v. Hilliard & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- Ray v. . PearceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
- Simmons v. . BallardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
3Cited by5 opinions
- Wells v. HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
- Phillips v. GilesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
- Phillips v. . GilesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
- Wells v. . HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
- Wells v. HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896