{
  "id": 8652711,
  "name": "F. S. ROYSTER, Administrator v. P. LANE, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Royster v. Lane",
  "decision_date": "1896-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "156",
  "last_page": "159",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "118 N.C. 156"
    }
  ],
  "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": "73 Wis., 409",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wis.",
      "case_ids": [
        8705629
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wis/73/0409-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 262,
    "char_count": 4916,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0572847512624042e-07,
      "percentile": 0.555677956514067
    },
    "sha256": "f8aa4b7f231b3a2b23ff5aa9d5a6c472d7fa8ae59f68aa2462471c1a7f975e7a",
    "simhash": "1:9471d7fa9dc14218",
    "word_count": 851
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:06.557243+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "F. S. ROYSTER, Administrator v. P. LANE, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Montgomery, J.:\nPatrick Lane and his wife Zilpha executed a mortgage in 1881 to O'. C. Farrar upon a tract of land in Edgecombe county to secure to him a debt of $2,J91.94. The mortgage was proved in due form, the private examination of the wife taken before the clerk of the superior court, and the instrument ordered to registration by that officer. The register of deeds, instead of recording it as it was written, when, he came to transcribe^ the words in the premises, \u201c Patrick Lane and his wife Zilpha Lane, \u201d wrote Patrick Savage and wife Zilpha Savage, instead. That officer, in recording the description of the land, followed the mortgage, which was in these words : \u201c All the real estate of which said Patrick Lane is seized and possessed,\u201d &c., but when he came to copy the further description, he wrote \u201c said land embracing that which said \u201c Patrick Savage \u201d purchased \u2014 instead of writing \u201c said land embracing that which said Patrick Lane purchased. \u201d The mortgage was otherwise registered just as it was written, the conditions showing that Patrick Lane, \u201cparty of the first part,\u201d owed the debt and that if he should pay it according to the conditions of the mortgage it should be void, and providing that in case default was made by him in its payment and a sale had to te made, the surplus if any, should go to Patrick Lane. A second mortgage was made in 1892 by the same Patrick Lane and his wife to J. J. Martin on the same piece of land to secure a debt Lane owed Martin. This action is prosecuted by the administrator of Farrar to have foreclosure, first, to pay the debt due under the first-named mortgage, .and then to pay any surplus to Martin on his second mortgage. His Honor was of opinion that the first mortgage was a prior lien and ordered the land to be sold to pay, first, to the plaintiff the debt due to his intestate\u2019s estate, .\u25a0and any, surplus to Martin. The defendant Martin .appealed.\nThe mortgage to Farrar was properly indexed, i. e.> in the name of \u201c Patrick Lane and wife Zilpha to O. C. Far-rar. \u201d It was properly admitted to probate, the wife\u2019s private examination being also taken, and the order of registration duly made by the clerk. It was the register\u2019s duty \u25a0 to record it. There was enough of the mortgage registered properly to show to everybody that the register had made the clerical mistake of writing Patrick Savage and wife as the grantors, instead of following the mortgage and writing it Patrick Lane and wife.\nThere is no rule of law that we are aware of which \u2022makes void a registry because of a clerical mistake, made \u2022 by the register in transcribing, which does not affect the \u25a0sense and provision as to the amounts\u2019secured, description \u25a0of property, &c., or obscure the meaning of the instrument. St. Croix Co. v. Richter, 73 Wis., 409.\nWe are of opinion that the mortgage, registered as it was, was good for all purposes. This view of the matter renders it unnecessary to go into an extended discussion of notice and its effect upon subsequent purchasers. There was no error in the rulings of the court below.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Montgomery, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. G. M. T. Fountain for defendant (appellant)..",
      "Messrs. Staton c& Johnston for plaintiff."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "F. S. ROYSTER, Administrator v. P. LANE, et al.\nRegistration of Mortgage \u2014 Clerical Mistake in Recording \u2014 Priority of Liens.\n1. A registry of a mortgage is not void because of a clerical mistake made by the register in transcribing, which does not affect the sense and provision as to the amount secured, description of property, &c., or obscure the meaning of the instrument.\n2. A mortgage by \u201c Patrick Lane and wife Zilpha Lane \u201d to F was properly executed, probated and ordered to be registered but the Register of Deeds in transcribing the words in the premises-wrote \u201c Patrick Savage and wife Zilpha Savage \u201d instead of \u201c Patrick Lane and wife Zilpha Lane.\u201d In recording the description of the land the Register followed the mortgage-in describing it as \u201c all the real estate of which Patrick Lane is seized, &c.,\u201d but in a further description \u201c embracing that which Patrick Lane purchased \u201d it was transcribed as \u201cthat which Patrick Savage purchased, &c.\u201d Otherwise, the mortgage was transcribed exactly as written, referring to \u2018 \u2018 Patrick Lane \u201d as the party of the first part, maker of the notes- and as entitled to surplus after payment of the debt in ease of a sale. The mortgage was properly indexed. Subsequently, another mortgage was made to one M. ; Held, in an action of foreclosure, that the mortgage to F as registered was good for all purposes and had priority o-ver the mortgage to M.\nActioN by the plaintiff, administrator d. h. n. o. t. a. of 0. C. Farrar against Patrick Lane and wife and J. J. Martin, tried before Boykin, J.., at Fall Term, 1895, of Edgecojibe Superior Court. The facts appear in the opinion of Associate Justice Mohtgomery. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff the defendant appealed.\nMr. G. M. T. Fountain for defendant (appellant)..\nMessrs. Staton c& Johnston for plaintiff."
  },
  "file_name": "0156-01",
  "first_page_order": 192,
  "last_page_order": 195
}