Case ID: nc_198/html/0757-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CoNNob, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

E. T. CHANDLER v. JOHN S. CONABEER, Trading as CONABEER MOTOR COMPANY.
    (Filed 28 May, 1930.)
    1. Appeal and Error J c — Findings of fact l>y judge of general County Court are Finding on appeal when supported by evidence.
    Where the judge of a general County Court finds the facts, and his judgment is affirmed on appeal to the Superior Court, upon appeal to the Supreme Court the findings of fact of the County Court are binding when supported by the evidence, a jury trial not being required.
    2. Chattel Mortgages G b — Fact that chattel mortgage was not registered is immaterial when third person is not purchaser for value.
    Where in order to refinance his automobile the owner induces the plaintiff to use his name in the refinancing papers, and assigns the title to him, and the original owner later executes a mortgage on the car to secure another indebtedness due the plaintiff, and the plaintiff pays the installments under the refinancing mortgage, the original owner being permitted to retain possession of the car and deal with it as his own: Held, upon the original owner’s delivery of the car to another, in pursuance of a transaction between them, the fact that the mortgage was not registered at the time of the delivery to the third person is immaterial in the absence of evidence that such third person was a purchaser for value from the mortgagor, and the judgment that the mortgagee was the owner of the ear and entitled to its immediate possession will be affirmed on appeal.
    Appeal by defendant from Sinle, Special Judge, at April Term, 1930, of BüNCOMbe.
    Affirmed.
    Tbis is an action to recover of defendant possession of an automobile. Tbe action was tried in tbe General County Court of Buncombe County, before Weaver, J., without a jury.
    From tbe judgment on tbe facts found by tbe judge of tbe General County Court, defendant appealed to tbe Superior 'Court of Buncombe County. On tbis appeal tbe judgment was affirmed.
    From tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court, affirming tbe judgment of tbe General County Court, defendant appealed to tbe Supreme Court.
    
      Lane, Cathey & McKinney for plaintiff.
    
    
      Lee & Lee for defendant.
    
   CoNNob, J.

At tbe trial in tbe General County Court tbe judge found tbe following facts:

“1. Tbat on or about 18 December, 1928, one A. T. Dallas, being then tbe owner of a certain Oakland coupe, described in tbe pleadings, refinanced tbe same with Allport Motor Company, and not having sufficient credit bimself induced tbe plaintiff to use bis name in refinancing said car, and tbe original certificate of title from tbe Revenue Department of tbe State of North Carolina to Dallas was assigned to tbe plaintiff on or about 18 December, 1928, and left in tbe files of tbe Allport Motor Company with instructions to send to tbe State Department for tbe issuance of a new title in tbe name of tbe plaintiff, wbicb was finally accomplished on 4 September, 1929.
2. That tbe said Dallas being indebted to tbe plaintiff, on or about 18 January, 1929, executed and delivered to tbe plaintiff a mortgage on said Oakland automobile, securing $864, wbicb mortgage was not recorded until 8 August, 1929.
3. That A. T. Dallas was permitted to continue to use tbe car and tbe same continued in bis possession until 6 May, 1929.
4. That tbe plaintiff paid tbe installments on tbe refinancing mortgage as they matured.
5. That tbe plaintiff authorized tbe said A. T. Dallas to deal with tbe car as bis own, allowing him to sell it if be could, provided plaintiff should be paid all amounts due him.
6. That on or about 6 May, 1929, in pursuance of a transaction negotiated by Dallas and E. 0. Mitchell, salesman for tbe defendant, Cona-beer Motor Company, tbe said Dallas delivered to tbe defendant tbe automobile in question stating at tbe time to defendant’s agent that be could not deliver title, but that title would have to be obtained from tbe plaintiff.
7. That tbe value of tbe Oakland automobile at tbe time of delivery to tbe defendant was $600, and it is agreed by tbe parties that tbe same has not materially deteriorated since.
8. That at tbe time of tbe institution of this action tbe plaintiff bad not delivered title to tbe defendant, and tbe defendant bad not satisfied tbe debt claimed by Chandler against A. T. Dallas.”

Upon tbe foregoing facts, it was adjudged by tbe General County Court that tbe plaintiff, E. T. Chandler, is tbe owner and entitled to tbe immediate possession of tbe Oakland coupe described in tbe complaint. Defendant excepted to tbe judgment, and on bis appeal to tbe Superior Court assigned as error tbe refusal of tbe court to dismiss tbe action as upon nonsuit, at tbe close of all tbe evidence. On bis appeal to this Court defendant contends that there was error in tbe refusal of tbe judge of tbe Superior Court to sustain bis assignment' of error, and in tbe judgment affirming tbe judgment of tbe General County Court. Neither of these contentions can be sustained.

There was evidence at tbe trial in tbe General County Court sufficient to support tbe findings of fact made by tbe judge of said court. These findings of fact are, therefore, conclusive for all purposes in this action. Colvard v. Dicus Bros., ante, 270, 151 S. E., 191; Holmes Electric Co. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 197 N. C., 766, 150 S. E., 621; Eley v. R. R., 165 N. C., 78, 80 S. E., 1064. It appears from these facts that plaintiff is tbe owner and entitled to tbe possession of tbe automobile by virtue of tbe chattel mortgage executed by A. T. Dallas on 18 January, 1929. Hinson v. Smith, 118 N. C., 503, 24 S. E., 541.

Tbe fact that tbe mortgage was not registered at the date of tbe delivery of tbe automobile to tbe defendant by tbe mortgagor, in tbe absence of a finding that tbe defendant is a purchaser for value, is immaterial. Music Store v. Boone, 197 N. C., 174, 148 S. E., 39. There was no evidence at tbe trial from which tbe judge could have found that defendant is a purchaser of tbe automobile for value from tbe mortgagor, or from one claiming under tbe mortgagor as a purchaser for value.

There is, therefore, no error in tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court . affirming tbe judgment of tbe General County Court. Tbe judgment is

Affirmed.