{
  "id": 11270520,
  "name": "W. H. GALLOP v. ELIZABETH CITY MILLING COMPANY et als.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gallop v. Elizabeth City Milling Co.",
  "decision_date": "1919-09-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "1",
  "last_page": "2",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "178 N.C. 1"
    }
  ],
  "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": "81 Am. Dec., 541",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "Am. Dec.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 229,
    "char_count": 3783,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.437,
    "sha256": "42d8245fa15581cf9a3f874d31bda55aef04f5912e74193ea04c3f487bb539d3",
    "simhash": "1:af514ff017ec32b3",
    "word_count": 641
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:08.818827+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. H. GALLOP v. ELIZABETH CITY MILLING COMPANY et als."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Claeic, C. J.\nThe mortgage described the property as follows: \u201cMy entire crop of Irish and sweet potatoes, com, etc., grown in the year 1916 on the lands of Thomas Harris, being one-half of the crop grown on said land.\u201d This was a sufficient description. It was not necessary to mention in detail every article of the crop. The words \u201cIrish and sweet potatoes, corn, etc.,\u201d were sufficient to indicate that all the crop of every description was embraced in the mortgage, and that the lien was not limited to the articles specifically named. \u2022\nThe description of the land on which the crop was to be raised was \u201cthe lands of Thomas Harris,\u201d and certainly extended to the crops raised by the mortgagor during 1916 on the lands of said Harris in the county of Currituck, in which the mortgage was registered.\nThe word \u201cetc.\u201d or \u201cet cetera\u201d means other crops. In R. R. v. Metcalf, 81 Am. Dec., 541, it was held that a resolution of the board of directors of a railroad company authorizing a mortgage of the road and its property, \u201cetc.,\u201d embraced its franchises, rights, and privileges. Besides, in this case the clause at the end, \u201cbeing one-half of the crop grown on said lands,\u201d clearly indicated an intention that the mortgage should embrace one-half of the crops of every description.\nThe point was further taken in this Court, though not raised by exception on the trial, that the complaint was insufficient in that it did not recite that the mortgage was registered before the cotton was bought by the mill company. If the complaint on this ground did not state a cause of action the exception could be taken for the first time in this Court, of course, but the allegation that the mortgage was \u201cduly registered\u201d would indicate that it was registered in due time. Indeed, a failure to allege that it was registered at all would not be fatal.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Claeic, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Aydlett, Simpson & Sawyer for plaintiff.",
      "Thompson & Wilson for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. H. GALLOP v. ELIZABETH CITY MILLING COMPANY et als.\n(Filed 10 September, 1919.)\n1. Mortgages \u2014 Crops\u2014Descriptive Words, \u201cEtc.\u201d \u2014 Vendor and Purchaser.\nA mortgage by the cropper of his \u201cIrish and sweet potatoes, corn, etc,,\u201d grown on his land, sufficiently identifying the lands, is sufficient to include cotton raised thereon, the words \u201cetc.\u201d or \u201cet cetera\u201d meaning other crops, especially when it is further described as \u201cbeing on\u00e9-half the crop grown on said lands\u201d; and when the mortgage has been registered in the proper county the mortgagee may recover them from the purchaser of the mortgagor.\n2. Pleadings \u2014 Complaint\u2014Cause of Action \u2014 Objections and Exceptions\u2014 Allegations \u2014 Mortgages\u2014Registration\u2014Vendor and Purchaser.\nAn exception to the sufficiency of the complaint to state a cause of action may be taken, for the first time, in the Supreme Court, on appeal; but where the action is by the mortgagee to recover of a purchaser of the mortgagor goods sold subject to a registered mortgage, the allegation is unnecessary that the goods were sold subsequent to the registration of the instrument, though, in this case, it is hold that the allegation that the mortgage was \u201cduly registered\u201d is sufficient if such allegation were necessary.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Devin, March Term, 1919, of Ctte-eituck.\nThis was an action by plaintiff to recover $295.20, the value of certain cotton sold to the defendant, the Elizabeth City Milling Company, by one A. Cherry, against whom the plaintiff held a mortgage.\nThe complaint alleged that the mortgage was duly recorded in Cur-rituck. At the trial the defendant demurred ore terms and moved to dismiss upon the ground that the complaint did not state a cause of action. A copy of the mortgage was set out in full as a part of the complaint.\nThe demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiff appealed.\nAydlett, Simpson & Sawyer for plaintiff.\nThompson & Wilson for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0001-01",
  "first_page_order": 65,
  "last_page_order": 66
}