Ellington v. Currie

6 Citing cases

  1. Ballard v. Ballard

    230 N.C. 629 (N.C. 1949)   Cited 45 times
    Noting that effective delivery of deed occurs when grantor causes the written instrument to be recorded

    Thus, there is an effective delivery where the grantor causes the written instrument to be recorded, or leaves it with the proper officer for recording with the intention that it thereby shall pass title to the grantee according to its purport and tenor, and the act of the grantor is accompanied or followed by the assent of the grantee. Robbins v. Rascoe, 120 N.C. 79, 26 S.E. 807, 38 L.R.A. 238, 58 Am. St. Rep. 774; Phillips v. Houston, 50 N.C. 302; Ellington v. Currie 40 N.C. 21; Snider v. Lackenour, 37 N.C. 360. In such cases, assent on the part of the grantee is presumed until the contrary is shown if the conveyance be beneficial to him.

  2. Buchanan v. Clark

    164 N.C. 56 (N.C. 1913)   Cited 26 times
    In Buchanan v. Clark, 164 N.C. 56 (60-1), is the following: "We are of opinion that the defendants in this case are completely foreclosed by the judge's findings of fact. Parties can have their causes tried by jury, by reference, or by the court.

    But it will be otherwise if the grantor or donor retain any (63) control over the deed; as if he, when he hands it to a third person, request him to keep it and deliver it to the person for whom it is intended, unless he shall call for it again. These principles will be found to govern all the cases, beginning with Tate v. Tate, 21 N.C. 22, running through Baldwin v. Maultsby, 27 N.C. 505; Snider v.Lackenour, 37 N.C. 360; Ellington v. Currie, 40 N.C. 21; Roe v. Lovick, 43 N.C. 88; Gaskill v. King, 34 N.C. 211; and Newlin v. Osborne, 49 N.C. 157, and down to Airey v. Holmes, ante, 142. Tried by the above mentioned test, the delivery of the deed, in the present case, must be declared to be complete. The donor handed the paper, signed and sealed, to a third person, for the use of the donee, without any reservation whatever, and when it was returned to her she immediately handed it to another person, for the donee, without the slightest intimation that she was to have any control over it. The delivery, however, was perfect when the instrument was handed to the first person, and it made no difference whether it was registered before or after the donor's death.

  3. Pierce v. Stallings

    79 S.E. 302 (N.C. 1913)   Cited 2 times

    There is no allegation nor suggestion in the complaint that the plaintiffs are creditors of the grantor or purchasers for value, etc.; they claim only as heirs at law, and, this being true, plaintiffs are concluded by the deed of their ancestor; as to them, the defendants acquired a good title. Saunders v. Lee, 101 N.C. 3; Ellington v. Currie, 40 N.C. 21; Waite on Fraudulent Conveyances, sec. 121; Reynolds v. Faust, 179 Mo., 21; Campbell v. Ross, 187 Ill. 553. In the citation from Waite, supra, the author says: "The heir of a grantor cannot impeach his ancestor's deed on the ground that it was made in fraud of creditors, for he can claim no right which the ancestor was estopped from setting up.

  4. Tarlton v. Griggs

    42 S.E. 591 (N.C. 1902)   Cited 25 times
    In Tarlton, the Supreme Court of North Carolina stated that "there is no delivery, where the maker has not gone so far with its execution that he cannot recall or control it."

    But when the deed, properly executed, is found out of the possession of the maker and in the possession of some other person, then the law presumes the fact to be that it was intentionally delivered to or for the grantee. Snyder v. Lackenour, 37 N.C. 360; 38 Am. Dec., 685; Ellington v. Currie, 40 N.C. 21; Airey v. Holmes, 50 N.C. 142; Phillips v. Houston, 50 N.C. 302; Robbins v. Rascoe, 120 N.C. 79; 38 L.R.A., 238; 58 Am. St., 774. But if the deed passed out of the maker's possession by accident, fraud or mistake, or was not intended to be delivered to the grantee or any one for him, then such presumption of the fact of delivery may be rebutted.

  5. Helms v. Austin

    21 S.E. 556 (N.C. 1895)   Cited 18 times
    In Helms v. Austin, 116 N.C. 751, the grantees were "Sarah Staton, his wife, and her heirs, named on the back of this deed, of the other part."

    These admitted facts are all consistent with the fact that the grantor retained a life estate, and, taken alone, have no tendency to rebut the implication of delivery arising from the registration. In a case "on all fours" with the present, it was held by this Court that where the donor went into court and acknowledged a deed of gift for the purpose of registration and it was accordingly registered, that was a delivery, and that any subsequent declaration that it had not been delivered and was not to have effect did not invalidate it. Airey v. Holmes, 50 N.C. 142; Ellington v. Currie, 40 N.C. 21. These cases dispose of the defendants' exceptions to the exclusion (755) of their proposed evidence.

  6. Bank v. Adrian

    21 S.E. 792 (N.C. 1895)   Cited 4 times

    In Triplett v. Witherspoon, 74 N.C. 475, the Court said: "Equity will not interfere to set up any transaction founded in fraud; certainly not against a purchaser for value, but will leave the parties to their legal rights." In Ellington v. Currie, 40 N.C. 21, upon a bill to avoid a (540) deed made to defraud creditors the Court said: "Equity will not interfere with the operation of the statute at the instance of either party to a fraudulent conveyance." In York v. Merritt, 77 N.C. 213, the action was by the grantee against the grantor for possession of the land conveyed to defraud creditors.