Case ID: nc_191/html/0216-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Stacy, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHN R. MERCER and J. F. PROCTOR et al. v. JOHN B. BULLOCK et al.
    (Filed 17 February, 1926.)
    Landlord and Tenant — Leases—Rents—Mortgages—Purchaser at Foreclosure Sale.
    Tbe purchaser at a foreclosure sale of lands subject to a lease is entitled to all rents becoming due under tbe lease from and after tbe time of bis purchase.
    Appeai, by interveners from Qranmer, J., at September Term, 1925, of Edgecombe.
    Civil action by landlord to recover of bis tenant rent for tbe year 1923. Purchasers at a mortgage sale intervened and set up title to tbe rent, and from judgment apportioning same between plaintiffs and interveners, tbe latter appeal, assigning errors.
    
      TS. B. Grantham for plaintiff.
    
    
      Battle & Winslow for interveners.
    
   Stacy, C. J.

During the year 1923, tbe defendant was a tenant on plaintiffs’ farm,’ the rent for which amounted to $900 and became due and payable 1 November of tbat year. On 10 September, 1923, tbe farm in question was sold under mortgage, and tbe interveners, trustees of tbe estate of R. H. Ricks, became tbe purchasers at said sale, deed for same being delivered to them on 21 September, 1923, and duly registered seven days thereafter. "Who is entitled to the rent which fell due'l November, 1923, tbe plaintiffs or tbe interveners? Tbis is tbe question for decision.

It is established by tbe decisions in tbis and other jurisdictions tbat, in tbe absence of a statute governing tbe matter, when mortgaged lands are in tbe possession of a tenant, and a foreclosure is bad during tbe term of tbe lease, nothing else appearing, tbe mortgagor is entitled to collect all tbe rent that is due at tbe time of sale, and tbe purchaser is entitled to collect all that subsequently falls due. Page v. Lashley, 15 Ind., 152. Tbe title to tbe rent is dependent on that of tbe property, hence a sale of tbe demised premises passes title to tbe accruing rent and gives tbe purchaser tbe right to collect tbe rent falling due after tbe purchase. Mixon v. Coffield, 24 N. C., 301; Lewis v. Wilkins, 62 N. C., 307; Kornegay v. Collier, 65 N. C., 69; Rogers v. McKenzie, ibid., 218; Lancashire v. Mason, 75 N. C., 459; Holly v. Holly, 94 N. C., 674; University v. Borden, 132 N. C., p. 486; Dixon v. Nicolls, 39 Ill., 372; Chisholm v. Spullock, 87 Ga., 665.

Sections 2345 and 2346 of tbe Consolidated Statutes, relating to tbe apportionment of rent where tbe lease or right to payment is terminated by death or other uncertain event, have no application to tbe facts of tbe instant case. Spruill v. Arrington, 109 N. C., 195.

Nor is tbe case of Pate v. Gaitley, 183 N. C., 262, at variance with our present position, for there tbe rent accruing after sale was tbe subject of specific agreement between tbe parties.

There was error in apportioning tbe rent between plaintiffs and inter-veners; no part of it bad accrued at tbe time of tbe sale under foreclosure; it all fell due, under tbe jury’s finding, after tbe interveners became tbe owners of tbe land; they are entitled to tbe rent falling due after their purchase. Upon tbe verdict and facts agreed, tbe inter-veners are entitled to judgment for tbe entire rent.

Error.