McNaspy v. Eunice Electric Theatre Co.

There is no difference between the issues in this case and those in the case of D. C. Rose, Jr., v. Eunice Electric *98Theatre Co., Ltd. (No. 25544), decided on June 4, 1923, 97 South. 322.1 As in the Rose Case, the Interstate Trust & Banking Company is the third opponent, and alleges that its mortgage should be paid in preference to McNaspy’s claim, for the same reasons that it alleged that’ this mortgage should be paid in preference to Rose’s claim, in the Rose Case, cited above.

MeNaspy’s claim is based on a contract entered into by him with the Eunice Electric Theatre Company, Limited, the…