Tabor City tribune. (Tabor City, N.C.) 1946-1991, 1958-12-17
This Is
The Law
BY ROBERT e. LEE
(FOR THE N. C. BAR
ASSOCIATION
AUTOMOBILE TIRES

from SHnltn unuSr 4 TeCOrueul
conditional sales contract. Jones.
under the terms of the contract,
promised 10 pay $50 month
until the full purchaSe-pice of
$4,000 was paid. Smith retained
the title or ownership of the
automobile as security.
Subsequently Jones needed a
set Of new tires for the car. They
were purchased from Taylor I'M
der recorded chattel mortgage.
/ Under the terms of this contract.
Taylor retained the title or own
crShip 20 the tires until the full
purchase-pricc was paid.
Shortly thereafter. Jones ccaS-
ed to make his $50 monthly pay
mcnts on the Car. There was a
balance due of $500 on the full
purchaSe-price OF the car.
Smith reposseSsed the automo-
bile from Jones. May Taylor re-
cover the new tires now on the
car in the possession of Smith?
Yes. The Supreme Court of
North Carolina has held that the
mortgage of the tires was en-
titled to recover the possession
or value of the tires from the
conditional seller OF the car.
This was true Notwithstanding
a provision of the conditional
sales contract that the Condi-
tional buyer of the car could not
create any lien on it for Access
series and that such accessories
should become a component part
of the car. The court said that
the provision insured to the
benefit of the conditional seller
only To the extent of whatever
property right the conditional
buyer may have had in the ac-
ccSSorIcS. Since the conditional
buyer did not have title or own
"rShIp in the tires. none was ac-
CURED by the conditional seller.
An express provision concern
ing attcr-acqulrcd parts or
equipment, inserted in a title
retaining instrument un q cr
which an automobile has been
sold, is binding upon the parties
10 the agrccmcn; but not upon
third persons not parties to il.
Actual or constructive notice OF
the Entertaining instrument
Will not affect the rights of
third persons who subsequently,
sell to the person in possession
under a different title-rctaining
instrument accessories which
can be easily and readily de-
tachcd without damage to the
, automobile
The inStallment seller of the
automobile in such cases, upon
the default of the buyer, ac-
=. IquireS only such title in the &C
ccSSorieS as the buyer has &C
, CURED as Of the time Of the de-
fault. Thus, notwithstanding the
l insertion of an after-acouireo
property clause in the terms OF
the title retaining instrument
~, the inStallment seller OF the au-
tomobile does not acquire title
10 detachable accessories thai
e are subsequently annexed under
the terms of titlc-retaining in.
: strument with another.
: Taplor could not have recov-
9 cred the tires if he had sole
them under an ordinary charge
% account. II was fortunate that hi
Z used the security of a chattc
mortgage. He could have also
achieved the same result with {
conditional sales contract. Both
are titlc-retaining instrument:
accomplishing the same purpose
This is the last of a fall serie.
of articles that have appeared
wcckly during the past thre,
months. They have been writer
for the non-lawyer as a public
Service of the North Carolin;
Bar Association. Another serie.
INtrt1 hn etartnl -, tL~ ---.-