Bateman v. . Sterrett

We have no hesitancy in holding that the act in question is not subject to successful challenge on the ground that it is a law “impairing the obligation of contracts” within the meaning of the constitutional provisions on the subject. Art. I, sec. 10, U. S. Const.; Art. I, sec. 17, N. O. Const. This is the only point raised by the appeal.

In the first place, the right of removal and substitution of trustees in deeds of trust existed at the time of the execution of the Bateman-Chicka- mauga-Prudential deed of trust. C. S., 2583; McAfee v. Green, 143 N. C., 411, 55 S. E., 828; Trust Co. v.…