Tomlinson v. . CranorTomlinson v. . Cranor
The plaintiff in his complaint alleges that on 4 January, 1930, T. B. Finley and wife, C. L. Finley, made and executed a deed of trust to Julius A. Rousseau, trustee for plaintiff, to secure the sum of $10,000, said deed of trust was duly recorded. The lot set forth in said deed of trust was in the town of North Wilkesboro and fully described.
The plaintiff further alleges: “That on _____ February, 1925, the said T. B. Finley and wife executed to H. A. Cranor, trustee, for the benefit
On 20 September, 1935, Judge Wilson Warlick issued a restraining order, as follows: “It is therefore ordered, considered, decreed, and
The defendant, Mrs. Bessie Cranor McElwee, demurs to the complaint of the plaintiff upon the following grounds:
“1. That the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; in that the plaintiff‘s complaint, upon its face, shows that on 4 January, 1930, the plaintiff took a deed of trust from T. B. Finley and wife, C. L. Finley, to secure $10,000, as shown by paragraph 2 of the complaint. Paragraph 3 of the complaint shows that the deed of trust of this defendant, upon 4 January, 1930, was the first mortgage on the tract of land described in paragraph 2, and that the mortgage of the plaintiff was a second mortgage, and does not allege that the purported release placed on the defendant‘s deed of trust by H. A. Cranor, trustee, was placed there at the instance of the plaintiff or that any value proceeded from him. That said complaint does not show any authority from this defendant to H. A. Cranor, trustee, to make the purported entry now found on her deed of trust, or that this defendant ever received anything of value therefor; and further, as a matter of law, shows that said purported entry is not such entry as a trustee is authorized to make, and was not made until three days after the plaintiff‘s deed of trust, if made at all.
“2. That the court has no jurisdiction of the action, the same being brought before the clerk of the Superior Court of Wilkes County, and the complaint directed to said clerk.
“This 23 September, 1935. W. H. McElwee, Attorney for Defendant, Mrs. Bessie Cranor McElwee.”
Thereupon defendant, Mrs. Bessie Cranor McElwee, filed an affidavit and petition: “That said deed of trust was issued to this affiant with H. A. Cranor as trustee therein, to whom no power was delegated, except the powers set forth in the deed of trust, and no authority was granted him any time thereafter to release the lands described in paragraph 2 of the answer from the lien of said deed of trust. That your affiant was no party to said purported release, and has received no money therefor. That your affiant commanded H. A. Cranor, trustee, to sell under said deed of trust, and the said trustee did advertise said property,
On 23 September, 1935, Judge Wilson Warlick issued a restraining order as follows: “It is, therefore, ordered that the plaintiff S. V. Tomlinson, and J. A. Rousseau, trustee, their attorneys and agents, be and they are hereby enjoined from selling the lands described in the complaint and in this affidavit on 23 September, 1935, or at any other time until further orders from the court, and they are further required to appear before his Honor, F. Donald Phillips, on Wednesday, 2 October, 1935, in Wilkesboro, North Carolina, at 10 o‘clock a.m., and show cause, if any they have, why this order should not be made permanent or continued to the final hearing of the action upon its merits.”
The restraining orders came on for hearing before Judge Phillips, who found certain facts and made the following order: “It is therefore ordered that the temporary restraining order, in favor of the plaintiff, is dismissed and dissolved, and that the temporary restraining order issued in favor of defendants is sustained and made permanent, except the plaintiff is entitled to his sale as a second lien.” The plaintiff excepted and assigned errors to the findings of fact set forth in the judgment — that J. A. Rousseau, trustee, was not made a party and to the judgment as signed, and appealed to the Supreme Court. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that the record imports verity. The case in this Court is determined on the record.
In the present case the defendants filed no answer denying the allegations of the complaint, but demurred to same. From the record this demurrer has not been passed on.
The brief of defendants deals with matters de hors the record, and some of the material matters therein debated are not now before us. The court below made the following order: “That the temporary restraining order, in favor of the plaintiff, is dismissed and dissolved, and that the temporary restraining order issued in favor of the defendants is sustained and made permanent, except the plaintiff is entitled to his sale as a second lien.” The temporary restraining orders were obtained by both plaintiff and defendants from Judge Warlick, and set for hearing, and were heard before Judge Phillips, at the same time and place.
In Bost v. Lassiter, 105 N.C. 490 (498), we find: “They cannot suffer serious injury by delaying the sale of the property until the action can be determined upon its merits. In such a case, the injunction will be continued until the hearing. Whitaker v. Hill, 96 N.C. 2, and cases there cited.”
In Sutton v. Sutton, 183 N.C. p. 128, it was held: “Upon the hearing by the judge upon the question of continuing a restraining order to the hearing, the judge, upon proper findings, may dissolve the temporary order, but in doing so it is error for him to also determine an issue of fact, material to the rights of the parties, and which should be reserved for the injury to pass upon at the trial.” Grantham v. Nunn, 188 N.C. 239 (242); McIntosh, N.C. Prac. and Proc. in Civil Cases, sec. 876, p. 994.
In Galloway v. Stone, 208 N.C. 739 (740), Devin, J., says: “A permanent or perpetual injunction issues as a final judgment which settles the right of the parties, after the determination of all issues raised. McIntosh N.C. Prac. and Proc., secs. 848, 849.”
The court below dismissed and dissolved the temporary restraining order theretofore issued in favor of plaintiff. This was error on the facts of this record. The issue of fact material to the rights of plaintiff should have been continued to the final hearing. The record also discloses that the demurrer of defendants to plaintiff‘s complaint was not passed on, nor was the question of making J. A. Rousseau, trustee, a party passed on. We may state that the record is not clear, and is somewhat ambiguous.
The cause was ably argued in this Court by T. C. Bowie, Jr., one of the attorneys for plaintiff.
For the reasons given, the judgment of the court below is
Reversed.