From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Turner v. Mebane

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 1892
14 S.E. 974 (N.C. 1892)

Opinion

(February Term, 1892)

Moving House Off Mortgaged Premises.

Moving a house off mortgaged premises does not impair the lien upon it, and a decree of sale, with leave to the purchaser to remove, cannot be objected to by the mortgagor.

APPEAL at August Term, 1891, of ORANGE, from Winston, J.

The defendant appealed.

J. W. Graham for plaintiff.

C. D. Turner for defendant.


The defendant mortgagor moved the house from the mortgaged premises across the road to another tract, also belonging to him, but not covered by the mortgage. This certainly could not impair the mortgage lien upon the house. If it could, in these days when house-moving machinery has been so greatly perfected, there would be a serious impairment of the security of all mortgaged, there would be a serious impairment of the security of all mortgages on improved real estate. The court decreed a sale of the house in its new situs under the mortgage, with leave to the purchaser to remove, or roll the building off again. We can perceive no grounds, legal or equitable, upon which the defendant can object to this. The plaintiff does not ask for more, (414) and the rights of third parties are not involved.

It does not appear that the building was attached to the freehold, and it is unnecessary to discuss the effect of such attachment in this case, if any.

No error.

Cited: Stevens v. Smathers, 124 N.C. 573.


Summaries of

Turner v. Mebane

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 1892
14 S.E. 974 (N.C. 1892)
Case details for

Turner v. Mebane

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS D. TURNER v. HENRY MEBANE

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Feb 1, 1892

Citations

14 S.E. 974 (N.C. 1892)
110 N.C. 413

Citing Cases

Walch v. Beck

Both sides concede there is no similar case in Iowa. And it is surprising that but few like cases are to be…

Stevens v. Smathers

In this there was no error. Horton v. Hensley, 23 N.C. 163. We were treated to an argument whether the lien…