Case Name: TARBORO BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION v. L. F. BELL, Administrator c. t. a. of W. L. BELL, Deceased, and Others
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1936-04-29
Citations: 210 N.C. 35
Docket Number: 
Parties: TARBORO BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION v. L. F. BELL, Administrator c. t. a. of W. L. BELL, Deceased, and Others.
Judges: DeviN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 210
Pages: 35–36

Head Matter:
TARBORO BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION v. L. F. BELL, Administrator c. t. a. of W. L. BELL, Deceased, and Others.
(Filed 29 April, 1936.)
Appeal by plaintiff from Moore, Special Judge, at April Term, 1935, of Edgecombe.
Affirmed.
This is an action to recover judgment for the amount due on a note executed by W. L. Bell, deceased, on 20 April, 1931, and payable to the plaintiff.
The note sued on was secured by a deed of trust executed by W. L. Bell, deceased. This deed of trust was foreclosed by a sale of the property described therein, under the power of sale contained in the deed of trust, on 22 June, 1933. The plaintiff was the purchaser at said sale and is now the owner of the property. The plaintiff has applied the amount of its bid at the sale as a payment on the note. The property described in the deed of trust and now owned by the plaintiff as the purchaser at the sale was fairly worth a sum in excess of the amount due on the note at the time of the sale.
From judgment that plaintiff recover nothing of the defendant, and that the defendant recover of the plaintiff his costs in the action, the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning error in the judgment.
H. H. Philips for plaintiff.
Gilliam & Bond for defendant.

Opinion:
Connor, J.
The judgment in this action is affirmed on the authority of Richmond Mortgage and Loan Corporation v. Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., et al., ante, 29. In that case it was held that section 3 of chapter 275, Public Laws of North Carolina, 1933, is valid. On the facts found by the judge presiding at the trial of this action, there is no error in the judgment.
Affirmed.
DeviN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.