{
  "id": 11274369,
  "name": "HINKLE, CRAIG & CO. v. MATTIE GREENE, (Widow)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hinkle, Craig & Co. v. Greene",
  "decision_date": "1899-12-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "489",
  "last_page": "490",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "125 N.C. 489"
    }
  ],
  "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": "95 N. C., 504",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274688
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/95/0504-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 N. C., 504",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274688
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/95/0504-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 211,
    "char_count": 2980,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.404,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0312367780175095e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5481157395662836
    },
    "sha256": "56f20ea7ae6083e5fc27e146038a1c88995f08b2f8ad6867e008a1d19e792e41",
    "simhash": "1:ec04c4f152122cef",
    "word_count": 492
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:42:03.891072+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HINKLE, CRAIG & CO. v. MATTIE GREENE, (Widow)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eaihcuoth, O. J.\nThis case was heard upon agreed facts, viz.:\n1. That in March and April, 1898, the defendant\u2019s intestate purchased certain personal property from plaintiffs, and gave his promissory notes for the purchase money, in which notes it is recited that the title (of said property) remains in the plaintiffs until the whole be paid.\n\u25a0 2. That said intestate died November 2, 1898, and on November 5, 1898, said notes were duly registered in Register\u2019s office in Watauga County, and soon thereafter the defendant caused her year's allowance to- be assigned to- her, and the allotment includes the personal property purchased as above stated, for which said notes were given, and on December 15, 1898, the defendant was duly appointed administratrix on her said husband\u2019s estate.\nThe Code, sec. 1215, requires that, \u201cAll conditional sales of personal property, in which the title is retained by the bar-gainor, shall be reduced to writing and registered in the same manner, for the same fees, and with the same legal effect as is provided for chattel mortgages.\u201d The question then arises, which has the better title, the plaintiff by his registration of said notes or the defendant by the assignment of her year\u2019s allowance? The case must be governed by tire principle announced in Williams v. Jones, 95 N. C., 504. In that case, the chattel mortgage was registered after the death of the mortgagor, and the allotment of the widow\u2019s year\u2019s allowance included the mortgaged property. It was held that the mortgage may be registered after the death of the mortgagor; also, that the widow\u2019s \u25a0 right to her allowance was valid against the general creditors of her deceased husband,- but as to the liens and equities she takes the property in the same plight that her husband held it, and therefore subject to the mortgage lien, because the registered conditional sale is attended with \u201cthe same legal effect as is provided for chattel mortgages,\u201d and, besides, is good between these parties.\nThis is the only question for us, to be found in the record.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eaihcuoth, O. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for appellant.",
      "Messrs. TF. C. Newland, W. B. Qouncill, J., and E. S. Coffin, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HINKLE, CRAIG & CO. v. MATTIE GREENE, (Widow).\n(Decided December 19, 1899.)\nConditional Sale \u2014 Year\u2019s Allowance, The Code, Sec: 1215.\n1. A conditional sale of personal property made to the husband, registered after his death, like a mortgage, takes precedence over an allotment of year\u2019s allowance, including this property, made to his widow, after the registration. Williams v. Jones, 95 N. C., 504. .\n2. While the widow\u2019s right to her allowance was valid against the general creditors of her deceased husband, it is- postponed to liens and equities existing at his death.\nCmn ActioN for personal property, tried before McNeill, J., at Spring Term, 1899, of Watauga Superior Court, upon a case agreed, which is stated in the opinion.\nHis Honor rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs, and defendant appealed.\nNo counsel for appellant.\nMessrs. TF. C. Newland, W. B. Qouncill, J., and E. S. Coffin, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0489-01",
  "first_page_order": 521,
  "last_page_order": 522
}