{
  "id": 8656083,
  "name": "LANCE v. TAINTER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lance v. Tainter",
  "decision_date": "1904-12-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "249",
  "last_page": "250",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "137 N.C. 249"
    }
  ],
  "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": "70 N. C., 358",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8692948
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/70/0358-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 N. C., 235",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8688582
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/79/0235-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 L. R. A., 326",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L.R.A.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N. C., 129",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N. C., 256",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652751
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/113/0256-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 226,
    "char_count": 2894,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.46,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.461069116656541e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8055116340759635
    },
    "sha256": "b0dad8a2494d4eda556c3a89fa3a2a19de7bd89bfd8a85e6c16390614b1b4e36",
    "simhash": "1:97c1a3c1e59a9d3d",
    "word_count": 486
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:21:47.205247+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Connor, J., dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "LANCE v. TAINTER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nThis is an action by tbe plaintiff, as trustee in bankruptcy of two bankrupts, to have cancelled a deed in trust executed by them jointly, because it was acknowledged by both grantors and privy examination of their wives was taken before the trustee named in said deed, who was a notary public. The trustee in the deed being an interested person, the acknowledgment and privy examination before him were absolutely void. Long v. Crews, 113 N. C., 256, and cases cited; 1 Devlin Deeds, secs. 476 and 477; 1 Cyc., 553, and notes.\nThe acknowledgment being a nullity, so was the probate by the Clerk based thereon and the registration. Long v. Crews, supra; Barrett v. Barrett, 120 N. C., 129, 36 L. R. A., 326; Todd v. Outlaw, 79 N. C., 235; Robinson v. Willoughby, 70 N. C., 358; 1 Devlin, supra, 478.\nThe Code, section 1254, provides that \u201cno deed of trust or mortgage for real or personal estate shall be valid at law to pass any property as against creditors or purchasers for a valuable consideration from the donor, bargainor or mortgagor, but from the registration of such deeds of trust or mortgage in the county where the land lieth.\u201d The Bankrupt Law of 1898, section 67a> provides that \u201cclaims which, for want of record or for other reasons would not have been valid liens as against the creditors of the bankrupt, shall not be liens against his estate.\u201d And section 70e provides that \u201cthe trustee may avoid any transfer by the bankrupt of his property which any creditor of such bankrupt might have avoided, and may recover the property so transferred.\u201d It follows, therefore, that this instrument, not having been legally acknowledged, probated nor registered, is invalid against the creditors of the bankrupt and should be cancelled as a cloud upon the title which might injuriously affect the administration of the estate in the plaintiff\u2019s hands. The demurrer that the complaint did not state a cause of action was properly overruled.\nNo Error.\nConnor, J., dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gudger & McElroy, for tbe plaintiff.",
      "W. T. Crawford, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LANCE v. TAINTER.\n(Filed December 17, 1904).\n1. DEEDS \u2014 Acknowledgment\u2014Husband and Wife \u2014 Notary Public.\nA deed of trust acknowledged before the grantee named therein as notary public is void.\n2. DEEDS \u2014 Probate\u2014Registration\u2014Acknowledgment. \u2022\nWhere the acknowledgment of a deed is void, the registration thereof is also void.\n3. BANKRUPTCY \u2014 Cancellation of Instruments \u2014 Cloud on Title\u2014 Deeds \u2014 The Code, sec. 125J/.\nA toustee in bankruptcy may maintain an action to cancel, as a cloud on title, a deed made by the bankrupt, which was void for defective acknowledgment, probate, and registration.\nConnor, J., dissenting.\nActioN by N. J. Lance against A. C. Tainter and another, beard by Judge B. F. Long, at January Term, 1904, of tbe Superior Court of MadisoN County. From a judgment for tbe plaintiff tbe defendants appealed.\nGudger & McElroy, for tbe plaintiff.\nW. T. Crawford, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0249-01",
  "first_page_order": 283,
  "last_page_order": 284
}