Court Opinion

ID: 9808923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:54:20.379916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:20:09.309917
License: Public Domain

Barnhill, J.,
concurring: I concur in the majority opinion. In so doing I deem it well to note that the defendant made no contention in the court below that the property described in the conditional sales contract had come to rest in this State and that therefore the contract, not being recorded in this State, is not valid and enforceable against him, a purchaser for value. Hence the effect of our statute, G. S., 47-20, as a modification of the general rule was not considered.
That we decide the case here on the theory of the trial below without discussing or deciding questions not presented for decision must not be interpreted to mean that we hold that G. S. 47-20 does not materially modify the general rule in respect to property within this State. Applewhite Co. v. Etheridge, 210 N. C., 433, 187 S. E., 588. We will decide that question when it is properly presented.