Court Opinion

ID: 9808097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:27:45.656713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:57.731054
License: Public Domain

Stacy, C. J.,
dissenting: It is now established law in this jurisdiction that the proper indexing and cross-indexing of instruments required to be registered is an essential part of their registration. Story v. Slade, 199 N. C., 596, 155 S. E., 256; Bank v. Harrington, 193 N. C., 625, 137 S. E., 712; Dewey v. Sugg, 109 N. C., 328 (Judgment.)
It is likewise held for law with us “that an index will hold a subsequent purchaser to notice thereof if enough is disclosed by the index to put a careful or prudent examiner upon inquiry, and if, upon such inquiry, the instrument would have been found.” Ely v. Norman, 175 N. C., 294, 95 S. E., 543; West v. Jackson, 198 N. C., 693, 153 S. E., 257; Wynn v. Grant, 166 N. C., 39, 81 S. E., 949.
In the instant case, it seems the spirit of the law, if not the letter, has been sufficiently met to put a careful or prudent examiner upon inquiry, and such inquiry would have disclosed the remainder interest of Della Adams Gregory in the locus in quo.
The whole purpose of the registration law is to give notice. Hence, a substantial compliance with the provisions of the statute, which actually or constructively does give notice, though defective in some minor particular, ought not to be held entirely for naught, for the interest of the lienholder is at least equal to that of the examiner. The *286failure to dot an “i,” or to cross a “t,” is not forsooth tbe same thing as to omit to use the letter altogether. And even bad spelling is not always fatal. Nor should the indexing and cross-indexing of a register of deeds be completely blotted out simply because another might have done it better. In this respect the standard of perfection is too high for practicality.
BbokdeN, I., concurs in dissent.