AVERY and CLARK, JJ., dissenting. This case was submitted to the court below under section 567 of The Code, and is here by appeal. This section of The Code answers a most excellent and useful purpose, in thаt it enables parties to have their questions in difference settled upon an agreed stаte of facts, without delay and without the cost of witnesses and a trial below. It disregards forms, as such, and the perplexities of pleadings. It requires only that, by affidavit, it shall be made to apрear that a real case exists, and that the controversy is submitted in good faith to determinе the rights of the parties. One of the long-standing rules of practice of this Court (No. 10) provides thаt, "When, by consent of counsel, it is desired to submit a case without oral argument, the Court will recеive printed arguments without regard to the number of the case on the docket, or date оf docketing the appeal. . . . ." Rule 13, amongst other things, provides that the Court, at the instancе of a party to a cause directly involving a matter of great public interest, may assign an earlier place in the calendar, or fix a day for the argument thereof, which shall take precedence of other business. Under these rules, we have felt it to be our duty to givе an early hearing to the matters involved in the case before us, because of its publiс and general interest.
Upon examination of the proceeding before us, we are not satisfied that the facts are stated with sufficient fullness to entirely comply with the statute under whiсh the matter is submitted; but (320) the question of law which is submitted is presented with entire distinctness. And while ordinarily we might dismiss the proceeding because the case is not full enough as to its statement of facts, yet whеre a matter involves a great public interest, as does this matter, we have concluded to follow a late precedent of this Court — "Treat the case as in the nature of a submission of the controversy without a formal action." The precedent to which we refеr will be found in Appendix "A," 114 N.C. This controversy arises upon a state of facts which brings (323) before us the сonstruction of the act of the General Assembly of 13 March, 1895, entitled "An act to regulate аssignments and other conveyances of like nature in North Carolina." Section 1 is as follows: "That all conditional sales, assignments, mortgages or deeds in trust which are executed to secure any debt, obligation, note or bond which *190
gives preference to any creditor of the maker shall be absolutely void as to existing creditors." The plaintiff contends that the mortgage in this case is void under the provisions of the act. We are of the opinion that the mortgage is valid and that the act is limited to conditional sales, assignments, mortgages and deeds in trust madе to secure preexisting debts and obligations, and that mortgages of the nature of the one before the Court, growing out of the transaction itself and executed for a present сonsideration, do not come within the operation of the statute referred to, and that it (the statute) evidently refers to preexisting debts, and was not intended to embrace transaсtions of this kind, where the debt grows out of the transaction itself and is for a present (324) considerаtion. We are supported in this position by an opinion of this Court at its January Term, 1871, delivered by Chief JusticePearson, in McKay v. Gilliam,