{
  "id": 8550468,
  "name": "L. E. JOHNSON PRODUCE v. JAMES MASSENGILL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Produce v. Massengill",
  "decision_date": "1974-10-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 7411SC569",
  "first_page": "368",
  "last_page": "369",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "23 N.C. App. 368"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "186 S.E. 2d 168",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 376",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572062
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0376-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 S.E. 2d 675",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 N.C. 118",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573191
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/260/0118-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 S.E. 2d 23",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 547",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575756
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "554"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0547-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 S.E. 2d 800",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 574",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551404
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "575-576"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/12/0574-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 S.E. 20",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1937,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 N. C. 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8606991
      ],
      "year": 1937,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/212/0253-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 209,
    "char_count": 3469,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.615,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2058959808081475
    },
    "sha256": "3d802f06158c7241c58926590630660e786459616f5f614abe68c524d630a4ce",
    "simhash": "1:ba8b74befe8a5caa",
    "word_count": 587
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:39.683180+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "L. E. JOHNSON PRODUCE v. JAMES MASSENGILL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Judge.\nDefendant argues the trial court erred in appointing a receiver to rent the property involved in that said property is owned as tenants by the entirety. That portion of the trial court\u2019s order in question reads:\n\u201cThat the plaintiff is entitled to the appointment of a receiver to collect the rents and profits from the lands owned by the defendant and his wife, as tenants by the entirety, and R. E. Batton is hereby appointed a receiver of this Court to rent and collect the rents and profits from the tobacco allotment on said lands .... \u201d\n\u201cProp\u00e9rty held by the entirety is not subject to execution to satisfy judgments against one spouse. (Citations.) However, proceeds of entirety property are the property of the husband as against the wife and such proceeds may be applied against debts of the husband alone. Lewis v. Pate, 212 N. C. 253, 193 S.E. 20 (1937).\u201d Hodge v. Hodge, 12 N.C. App. 574, 575-576, 183 S.E. 2d 800 (1971). Justice Sharp, concurring in Gas Co. v. Leggett, 273 N.C. 547, 554, 161 S.E. 2d 23 (1968), points out:\n\u201cThe judgment creditor, however, is not entitled to have a receiver appointed to take possession of the land itself in order to rent the property and apply the rentals to the payment of the judgment. Grabenhofer v. Garrett, 260 N.C. 118, 131 S.E. 2d 675; 2 Lee, N. C. Family Law \u00a7 116 (3d ed. 1963).\u201d\nSince the trial court\u2019s order may be interpreted to permit the receiver to rent the property in question, we hereby delete the words \u201crent and\u201d from that portion of the order set out above and affirm the order as modified.\nModified and affirmed.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. Austin Stevens, for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Mast, Tew & Nall, by George B. Mast and Joseph T. Nall, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "L. E. JOHNSON PRODUCE v. JAMES MASSENGILL\nNo. 7411SC569\n(Filed 16 October 1974)\n1. Execution \u00a7\u00a7 1, 16; Husband and Wife \u00a7 15\u2014 judgment against husband\u2014 execution \u2014 rents and profits\nWhile property held by the entirety is not subject to execution to satisfy judgments against one spouse, proceeds of entirety property are the property of the husband as against the wife and may be applied against debts of the husband alone; however, the judgment creditor is not entitled to have a receiver appointed to take possession of the land itself in order to rent the property and apply the rentals to the payment of the judgment.\n2. Execution \u00a7\u00a7 1, 16\u2014 judgment against husband \u2014 execution unsatisfied \u2014 entirety property \u2014 receiver \u2014 collection of profits \u2014 no authority to rent\nWhere judgment was obtained against the husband, execution was returned unsatisfied and a receiver was appointed \u201cto rent and collect the rents and profits from the tobacco allotment\u201d on land held by the entirety, the portion of the order permitting the receiver \u201cto rent\u201d the property must be stricken.\nDefendant appeals from Hobgood, Judge, 14 January 1974 Civil Session of Johnston County Superior Court.\nPlaintiff obtained a judgment against defendant at the 15 January 1971 Civil Session of Johnston County Superior Court, and in Johnson v. Massengill, 280 N.C. 376, 186 S.E. 2d 168 (1972) the court found no error in the trial. On two occasions plaintiff caused execution to issue on the judgment, and each time execution was returned unsatisfied. Defendant now appeals from a decree of Judge Hobgood ordering the appointment of a receiver \u201cto rent and collect the rents and profits from the tobacco allotment on said lands.\u201d\nL. Austin Stevens, for plaintiff appellee.\nMast, Tew & Nall, by George B. Mast and Joseph T. Nall, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0368-01",
  "first_page_order": 396,
  "last_page_order": 397
}