{ "id": 8652341, "name": "CLARK BROTHERS v. DAVID HILL, Jr.", "name_abbreviation": "Clark Bros. v. Hill", "decision_date": "1895-09", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "11", "last_page": "13", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "117 N.C. 11" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "96 N. C., 265", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8649966 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/96/0265-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 N. C., 432", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273906 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/107/0432-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 N. C., 322", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652725 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/105/0322-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 N. C., 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653372 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/113/0444-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 N. C., 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651144 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/112/0377-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 264, "char_count": 3652, "ocr_confidence": 0.453, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.779275852089122e-07, "percentile": 0.8350104581386791 }, "sha256": "0d11ece0686d531fff59a33985b836fc138ecf1d29965616c8ea6bddb85a1708", "simhash": "1:e3290639348dcf9c", "word_count": 654 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:25:58.395701+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "CLARK BROTHERS v. DAVID HILL, Jr." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Clark, J. :\nThe plaintiffs earnestly contend that the terms of the contract were those sot forth in their reply to Moss, when the \u201csteam-feed\u201d was shipped, i. e. a lease upon payments of rent, as stated, and on the last payment of rent the property to belong to Moss, in the meantime the title to be retained by the vendor. Conceding this to be correct, such contract was in effect a conditional sale. Calling it a \u201clease\u201d did not make it one, when its terms showed it was not. This was held in Puffer v. Lucas, 112 N. C., 377, which has been since cited and approved in Crinkley v. Egerton, 113 N. C., 444; Barrington v. Skinner, at this term. This agreement not being registered, the stipulation fi >r retention of the title by the vendors was in valid as to third parties, (Oode, Sec. 1275.) The property in dispute, by the mode of its attachment, became a \u201cfixture\u201d as between Moss and this defendant\u2019s assignor, they being mortgagor and mortgagee (Horne v. Smith, 105 N. C., 322; Overman v. Sasser, 107 N. C., 432,) and enured to tbe benefit of the mortgagee. Foote v. Gooch, 96 N. C., 265.\nThe court should have instructed the jury, as prayed by the defendant, that upon all the evidence the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover.\nError.", "type": "majority", "author": "Clark, J. :" } ], "attorneys": [ "Mr. Ohas. F. Warren, for plaintiffs.", "Mr. John II. Small, for defendant (appellant)." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CLARK BROTHERS v. DAVID HILL, Jr.\nConditional Sale \u2014 Lease\u2014Registration\u2014Fixtures.\n1. A contract for the \u201clease\u201d of personal property, upon payments of rent, the property to belong to the lessee upon the last payment of rent, is in effect a conditional sale and unless registered its stipulation for the retention of title by the vendors is invalid as to third parties.\n2. A \u201csteam-feed\u201d attached by iron bolts to the sills of a mill resting on piling, driven into the ground becomes by such mode of attachment a \u201cfixture\u201d as between mortgagor and mortgagee of the land upm which the mill is situate.\nAotiox of claim and, delivery, tried before- Boykin, J., and a jury, at February Term, 1895, of Beaufort Superior Court. The plaintiff sought to recover possession of a '\u201cSteam Feed\u201d machine which they had shipped to B. F. Moss, under whom the defendant claimed, upon conditions stated in a letter which they wrote to Moss at the time of shipment, the material part of which letter was as follows : \u201cIn sending out our Feeds in this way, we have the parties give us their notes, payable according to the terms of the lease as rental on the same, and when the notes are paid we give them tittle to the machinery and a contract to refund .or give back the notes if the machinery does not prove satisfactory, perfectly, and do all we claim for it in our circular. We will ship the Feed on these terms at once, and we know that you will be pleased with it,\u201d etc. On the trial it appeared that the \u201cSteam Feed\u201d was attached to the sills of a saw mill by iron bolts, the sills resting on piling driven in tbe ground. The land on which the saw mill was built belonged to B. F. Moss, subject to a mortgage which was subsequently foreclosed. The defendant claimed under the purchaser at the foreclosure sale and was in possession of the land and the \u201cSteam Feed\u201d (attached to the mill as stated) when suit was brought for the recovery of the machine.\nUnder instructions from his Honor that, upon all the evidence, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, the jury so found, and from the judgment on the verdict the defendant appealed, assigning as error that his Honor erred in giving the said instruction instead of the instruction prayed for by defendant that, upon all the evidence, the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover.\nMr. Ohas. F. Warren, for plaintiffs.\nMr. John II. Small, for defendant (appellant)." }, "file_name": "0011-01", "first_page_order": 39, "last_page_order": 41 }