Legal Opinion

Hood, Comr. of Banks v. . MacClesfield

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 22, 1936PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

The demurrer was properly sustained, for, as to the receiver who represents the creditors of the insolvent corporation, the alleged parol agreement to convey is void. Observer Co. v. Little, 175 N. C., 42, 94 S. E., 526; Mfg. Co. v. Price, 195 N. C., 602, 143 S. E., 208. Even if the conveyance had been executed, it would not be valid as against creditors and purchasers for value, “but from the registration thereof within the county where the land lies.” C. S., 3309; Eaton v. Doub, 190 N. C., 14, 128 S. E., 494.

The principles announced in Spence v. Pottery Co., 185 N. C., 218, 117 S. E., 32,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Eaton v. . DoubSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  2. Spence v. . Pottery Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  3. Observer Co. v. . LittleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
  4. National Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. PriceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Eno Investment Co. v. Protective Chemicals Laboratory, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API