Case v. . Arnold
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBaeNiiill, J.
The plaintiff alleges various circumstances which he contends were sufficient to put the defendant on notice that it was intended that the mortgage to the plaintiff should include and embrace Lot 22. Actual notice, however full and formal, does not take the place of registration. McClure v. Crow, 196 N. C., 657, 146 S. E., 713; Sexton v. Elizabeth City, 169 N. C., 385, 86 S. E., 344; Blacknall v. Hancock, 182 N. C., 369, 109 S. E., 72; Robinson v. Willoughby, 70 N. C., 358; Duncan v. Gulley, 199 N. C., 552, 155 S. E., 244. In any event, the allegations of notice to the appealing defendant is…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Robinson v. WilloughbySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874
- Sexton v. . Elizabeth CitySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Blacknall v. . HancockSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
- McClure v. . CrowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- Duncan v. . GulleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hayes v. RicardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Matthews v. Shamrock Van Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Bruton v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945