{
  "id": 11271793,
  "name": "ARMOUR & CO. et als. v. PEOPLES LAUNDRY COMPANY et als.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Armour v. Peoples Laundry Co.",
  "decision_date": "1916-05-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "681",
  "last_page": "685",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "171 N.C. 681"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 469,
    "char_count": 11470,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.461,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.532197974863732e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28361556986527015
    },
    "sha256": "b42c4e99e96f160721954100833d4d41a84d426cfea6ca7a9f978afd40e6ef17",
    "simhash": "1:a91904d6660bfe7c",
    "word_count": 1924
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:52:28.143754+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ARMOUR & CO. et als. v. PEOPLES LAUNDRY COMPANY et als."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nTbis was a creditor\u2019s bill to wind up tbe Peoples Laundry Company, an insolvent corporation. W. S. West on 5 May, 1914, was appointed permanent receiver and authorized to carry on tbe business \u201cas a going concern.\u201d\nOn 1 April, 1913, tbe Peoples Laundry Company executed a note to \u25a0 J. R. Goiter for $9,041.25, witb interest from tbat date, and secured tbe same by a mortgage on all its property, a large part of tbis amount being for a prior indebtedness.- Tbe referee found tbat Goiter owned all tbe stock of tbe company except tbirty-two shares of par value, at $10 each; tbat tbe stockholders in tbe meeting authorized tbe mortgage to Goiter, be taking a part in tbe meeting and without him there being no quorum present. Tbe mortgage recites tbat it was authorized at a directors\u2019 meeting. There were three directors, Goiter and two others, one of whom owned five shares and tbe other one share, which bad been given them by Goiter to enable them to qualify as directors. There were other creditors at tbe time besides Goiter, including tbe American Laundry Machinery Company, one of tbe appellants, whose claims have never been paid.\nOn 17 April, 1913, J. R. Goiter executed to tbe Raleigb Banking and Trust Company bis negotiable promissory note for $5,000 and deposited as collateral security tbe above mortgage note of tbe Peoples Laundry to bim for $9,041.25. However, subject to impeachment of said note, it is found as a fact tbat tbe said bank took said collateral security before due, for value, in good faitb, and without any notice of any defect therein. Tbe referee finds tbat there is now due on said note tbe sum of $3,000 and interest, which is due to said bank, and there is no contest as to tbe validity of said debt.\nOn 23 December, 1913, tbe Peoples Laundry executed to tbe Merchants National Bank its negotiable promissory note for $3,250, and on 10 February, 1913, its negotiable promissory note for $3,000, and on 24 February its further negotiable note for $1,250. All three of said notes were signed by J. R. Goiter individually as surety. On 19 June, 1913, said Goiter, to secure said notes (there having been, paid thereon only $500, credited upon tbe last named note) executed an assignment and conveyance of tbe interest of said Goiter in tbe note and mortgage to bim from tbe Peoples Laundry for $9,041.25, subject only to tbe prior assignment of the same to tbe Raleigb Banking and Trust Company, which last assignment was duly recorded.\nOn 23 December, 1913, said Goiter represented to tbe Merchants National Bank tbat tbe only encumbrance on tbe property of tbe Peoples Laundry was a debt of $4,000 to tbe Raleigb Banking and Trust Company, secured by said note and mortgage of $9,041.25, and tbat there would be nothing due on said last note and mortgage after tbe payment of said $4,000. Relying upon such representations, tbe Merchants National Bank on 22 December, 1913, accepted a new note of tbe Peoples Laundry for $8,500, indorsed by said Goiter and A. Curcio individually, and secured by a mortgage of tbe same date on tbe entire property of tbe Peoples Laundry duly recorded. Tbe previous notes of $3,250, $3,000, and $1,250 (on which $500 bad been paid), were canceled, as was also tbe previous assignment of Goiter\u2019s interest in tbe $9,041.25 note and mortgage which bad been previously given as collateral security, subject to tbe indebtedness of- tbe Raleigb Banking and Trust Company. Tbe difference in tbe amount of tbe two notes was money loaned by tbe Merchants National Bank, and of which some $1,300 was applied to reduce balance due Raleigb Banking and Trust Company to $3,000.\nOn 22 November, 1913, J. R. Goiter bad executed and delivered for value to Johnson & Johnson Company bis negotiable promissory note for $1,500, with tbe provision tbat it was secured by mortgage of even date on personal property and also by tbe mortgage note from tbe Peoples Laundry for $9,041.25. but subject to a prior lien of tbe Merchants National Bank for $5,041.25.\nOn 39 March, 1914, .Goiter gave notice to the Raleigh Banking and Trust Company that Johnson & Johnson were entitled to the balance of his interest in said $9,041.25 note and mortgage, the indebtedness to said Merchants National Bank having been canceled.\nOn 4 December, 1912, the Peoples Laundry purchased from the American Laundry Machinery Company certain property for $1,489.90, the title being retained by the vendor and the contract of conditional sale being duly recorded. On this conditional sale there is still due a balance of $289.90 and interest, all of which property was embraced in the mortgage of $9,041.25 above mentioned. The American Laundry Machinery Company also claims a balance of $585 on a conditional sale registered 13 June, 1913.\nUnder special orders of the court, the receiver issued certificates 'of indebtedness incurred in the execution of his trust for $1,250.\nThe receiver was directed to carry on the business of the Peoples Laundry as a \u201cgoing concern,\u201d and there was certain other indebtedness which as the referee finds is \u201cdue and unpaid and which was necessarily incurred by the receiver in good faith, in keeping the plant going and in running order. All of these items are for repairs and supplies and expenses necessary in the actual operation of the laundry.\u201d These debts are held by Morris & Eckles Company and others, but no receiver\u2019s .certificates were issued therefor. \u25a0\nThe above is a condensed statement of the findings' of fact in the very excellent report stated by the referee, Joseph B. Cheshire, Jr.\nUpon exceptions filed, the judge decreed that out of the proceeds of the sale of the defendant\u2019s property there should be paid the costs of the action, the allowance to the referee and the stenographer and to the commissioners for making the sale, and after the discharge of said \u201coverhead .charges\u201d the proceeds should be disbursed in the following order:\n1. The receiver\u2019s certificates, $1,250 and interest, which had been issued by the order of the court, and the amount due the owner of the property, S. B. Shepherd, $805 for the rent thereon. Out of the remainder of said proceeds there should be paid to the Raleigh Banking and Trust Company the sum of $3,000 and interest, the balance due upon the mortgage which it held as collateral security, subject, however, to the prior payment to the American Laundry Machinery Company of $289.90, which was 'secured by the recorded conditional sale of certain personal .property which had been later embraced in the $9,041.25 mortgage.- The $585 also due this company by conditional sale was not registered till .after registration of the $9,041.25 mortgage, and has no priority.\n. 2.- The payment to the Merchants National Bank of $5,081 and interest thereon. \u2022\nIt appearing to tbe court that these sums would consume all the proceeds of the sale, and that there were no other assets out of which any further sum can be realized, it was directed that the receiver should be discharged and the final judgment recorded.\nThe court found as a fact that the surrender, 22 December, 1913, by the Merchants National Bank of its interest as holder of the collateral security in the $9,041 mortgage was procured by the false statement of Goiter that said security would be canceled by the payment to the Raleigh Banking and Trust Company of the balance then due them, in reliance upon which the Merchants National Bank released its interest in said $9,041.25 mortgage and took a new note for $8,500, receiving no money, but, on the contrary, increasing its indebtedness by the loan of nearly $2,000, of which some $1,300 was paid to the Raleigh Banking and Trust Company, reducing the balance due them from $4,000 and interest to $3,000 principal, and that inasmuch as the note to the Johnson & Johnson Company expressly stated therein that it was subject to the payment to the Merchants National Bank of the sum of $5,081, the court held that the debt due the Merchants National Bank, referred to in said note to Johnson & Johnson Company, was not in fact paid, but was included in the larger note of $8,500, and correctly held that the claim of the Merchants National Bank to the extent of said $5,081 and interest was not displaced by said transaction and should be paid in preference to said Johnson & Johnson Company\u2019s claim.\nThe court further held that the expenses incurred'by the receiver without express order of the court and without reporting the same to the court, and for which no certificates of indebtedness were issued, were subordinate to the rights of the lien creditors and other claims above given priority.\nThe exception that the receiver\u2019s certificates, issued by order of the court, could not take priority over prior indebtedness of defendant cannot be sustained. The court adjudged that it was necessary for. the protection of the fund that the property should be placed in the hands of a receiver and so managed as to produce the best results for the creditors. This could not be done without the expenditure of the sums for which the court in its sound judgment ordered the receiver\u2019s certificates to be issued.\nUpon consideration of all the exceptions, the judgment is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J ones & Bailey for Raleigh Banking and Trust Company.",
      "John W. Hinsdale for American Laundry Machinery Company.",
      "S'. Brown Shepherd for J ohnson & J ohnson Company.",
      "Manning & Kitchin for Merchants National Bank.",
      "Clark & Broughton for Morris & Hckles Company."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ARMOUR & CO. et als. v. PEOPLES LAUNDRY COMPANY et als.\n(Filed 31 May, 1916.)\n1. liens \u2014 Mortgages\u2014Priorities\u2014Fraud\u2014Prior Mortgages.\nThe dominant owner and director in a corporation of three obtained its note and mortgage for a preexisting debt, hypothecated them as collateral to his personal note with R. Bank, and thereafter with M. Bank, for previous loans made by it to the corporation, but subject to the lien of the R. Bank; and subsequently pledged the same security to the corporation\u2019s debt to J. Still later he procured the M. Bank to increase its loan to the corporation upon fraudulent representations that the R. Bank should be paid in full, and for this increased amount the corporation gave a direct mortgage on its property to the M. Bank, which thereupon canceled its prior notes: Held, the second transaction with the M. Bank did not invalidate its lien under the assigned mortgage, and the corporation having become insolvent, the receiver should pay out the funds upon the following priorities: first, the debt to R. Bank; second, to the M. Bank to the extent of the amount of the lien under the assigned mortgage, and, third, the debt due to J.\n2. Mortgages \u2014 Conditional Sales \u2014 Priorities.\nA contract of conditional sale of personalty retaining title properly registered has a priority over liens by mortgage on corporation property subsequently made and registered.\n8. Corporations \u2014 Beceiver\u2019s Certificates \u2014 -Liens\u2014Priorities.\nWhere a receiver is appointed for an insolvent corporation to continue it in operation as a going concern, and finds that this is necessary .to produce the best results for the creditors, the receiver\u2019s certificate issued accordingly by order of the court takes priority over the corporation\u2019s prior mortgage or other indebtedness; but otherwise if it has been so issued by the receiver without order of court, or without the court\u2019s approval.\nAppeal by sundry creditors of defendant from Peebles, J., at November Term, 1915, of Wake.\nJ ones & Bailey for Raleigh Banking and Trust Company.\nJohn W. Hinsdale for American Laundry Machinery Company.\nS'. Brown Shepherd for J ohnson & J ohnson Company.\nManning & Kitchin for Merchants National Bank.\nClark & Broughton for Morris & Hckles Company."
  },
  "file_name": "0681-01",
  "first_page_order": 733,
  "last_page_order": 737
}