Bourne v. Lay & Co., 140 S.E.2d 769 (N.C. 1965). · Go Syfert
Search
Bourne v. Lay & Co., 140 S.E.2d 769 (N.C. 1965). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
61 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Silwal v. Akshar Lenoir (ncctapp, 2024-02-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Silwal v. Akshar Lenoir (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.C. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Bourne, 264 N.C. at 35-36 (asking “[a]re the plaintiffs estopped from denying the validity of [the] defendant’s lease by accepting rent in accordance with its terms for a period of two years and one month?” and answering “in the negative”).
examined Cited as authority (rule) GreaseOutlet.com, LLC v. MK S. II (3×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
MK SOUTH II, LLC Opinion of the Court unregistered deeds of trust and mortgages under the 1829 Act, the Connor Act affirms the principle that “[a]ctual knowledge, however full and formal, of a grantee in a registered deed of a prior unregistered deed or [long-term] lease will not defeat his title as a purchaser for value in the absence of fraud or matters creating estoppel.” Bourne v. Lay & Co., 264 N.C. 33, 35 , 140 S.E.2d 769, 771 (1965).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Benson v. Prevost
N.C. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
Under our pure race recording statute, “[a]s between two purchasers for value of the same interest in land, the one whose deed is first registered acquires title.” Bourne v. Lay & Co., 264 N.C. 33, 35 , 140 S.E.2d 769, 771 (1965). ¶ 33 There is evidence that there were conversations about the “flipped” boat slips between the attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Developers prior to closing, and that they agreed to “straighten out” the boat slip issue later.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Benson v. Prevost
N.C. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
Under our pure race recording statute, “[a]s between two purchasers for value of the same interest in land, the one whose deed is first registered acquires title.” Bourne v. Lay & Co., 264 N.C. 33, 35 , 140 S.E.2d 769, 771 (1965). ¶ 33 There is evidence that there were conversations about the “flipped” boat slips between the attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Developers prior to closing, and that they agreed to “straighten out” the boat slip issue later.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Benson v. Prevost
N.C. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Under our pure race recording statute, “[a]s between two purchasers for value of the same interest in land, the one whose deed is first registered acquires title.” Bourne v. Lay & Co., 264 N.C. 33, 35 , 140 S.E.2d 769, 771 (1965).
cited Cited as authority (rule) New Bar Partnership v. Martin
N.C. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Bourne v. Lay & Co., 264 N.C. 33, 35 , 140 S.E.2d 769, 771 (1965) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Parkside Senior Services, L.L.C. v. National Development and Consultants, Ltd.
Ill. App. Ct. · 1999 · confidence medium
App. 638, 640-41 , 286 S.E.2d 576, 578 (1982), quoting Bourne v. Lay & Co., 264 N.C. 33, 37 , 140 S.E.2d 769, 772 (1965).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Parkside Senior Services, L.L.C. v. National Development & Consultants, Ltd.
Ill. App. Ct. · 1999 · confidence medium
App. 638, 640-41 , 286 S.E.2d 576, 578 (1982), quoting Bourne v. Lay & Co., 264 N.C. 33, 37 , 140 S.E.2d 769, 772 (1965).
cited Cited as authority (rule) National Advertising Co. v. North Carolina Department of Transportation
N.C. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
Bourne v. Lay & Co., 264 N.C. 33, 36 , 140 S.E.2d 769, 770-71 (1965).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stephenson v. Jones
N.C. Ct. App. · 1984 · confidence medium
As was said in Beasley v. Wilson, 267 N.C. 95, 97 , 147 S.E. 2d 577, 579 (1966), “An unrecorded contract to convey land is not valid as against a subsequent purchaser for value . . . even though he acquired title with actual notice of the contract.” Of like import is Bourne v. Lay & Co., 264 N.C. 33, 35 , 140 S.E. 2d 769, 771 (1965), “Actual knowledge, however full and formal, of a grantee in a registered deed of a prior *125 unregistered deed or lease will not defeat his title as a purchaser for value in the absence of fraud or matters creating estoppel.” Here, there is neither pleadi…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barrington v. Employment Security Commission
N.C. Ct. App. · 1982 · confidence medium
According to Bourne v. Lay & Co., 264 N.C. 33, 37 , 140 S.E. 2d 769, 772 (1965), “[i]t is essential to an equitable estoppel that the person asserting the estoppel shall have done or omitted some act or changed his position in reliance upon the representations or conduct of the person sought to be estopped.” The person asserting estoppel *641 must also demonstrate that the reliance caused him detriment.
discussed Cited "see" Godley v. County of Pitt (2×)
N.C. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
App. at 326, 283 S.E. 2d at 431-32; see generally Bourne v. Lay & Co., 264 N.C. 33 , 140 S.E. 2d 769 (1965); 5 Strong’s N.C.
discussed Cited "see" Godley v. County of Pitt (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bourne v. Lay and Co., 264 N.C. 33 , 140 S.E. 2d 769 (1965).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Schiller v. Scott (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 1986 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Bourne v. Lay & Co., 264 N.C. 33, 35 , 140 S.E. 2d 769, 771 (1965) (actual knowledge of prior unregistered deed will not defeat the title of a purchaser for value in the absence of fraud or matters creating estoppel); Hill v. Memorial Park, 304 N.C. 159, 165 , 282 S.E. 2d 779, 783 (1981) (purchaser claiming protection under recording statutes has the burden of proving that he or she is an innocent purchaser for value, i.e., that he or she paid valuable consideration and had no actual notice, or constructive notice by reason of lis pendens, of pending litigation affecting title to th…
FRANCIS C. BOURNE, JR. and Wife, ELIZABETH A. BOURNE, and LUSH LEDFORD and Wife, HATTIE B. LEDFORD
v.
LAY & COMPANY, a Tennessee Corporation
34.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Mar 17, 1965.
140 S.E.2d 769
Simms .& Simms for defendant appellant. , McKeever & Edwards; Larry Thomas Black for plaintiff appellees.
DeNNY.
Cited by 25 opinions  |  Published
DeNNY, C.J.

This appeal poses two questions: (1) Is the plaintiffs’ subsequently acquired but prior recorded deed superior to the defendant’s lease? (2) Are the plaintiffs estopped from denying the validity of defendant’s lease by accepting rent in accordance with its terms for a period of two years and one month?

In our opinion, the first question must be answered in the affirmative and the second in the negative.

The Connor Act provides that “no conveyance of land, or contract to convey, or lease of land for more than three years shall be valid to pass any property, as against creditors or purchasers for a valuable consideration, from the donor, bargainor, or lessor, but from the registration thereof within the county where the land lies.” G.S. 47-18.

Our decisions applying the 'Connor Act establish these legal results:

(1) The registration of a deed conveying an interest in land is essential to its validity as against a purchaser for a valuable consideration from the grantor. Dulin v. Williams, 289 N.C. 33, 79 S.E. 2d 213.

(2) A lease for more than three years must, to be enforceable, be in writing, and to protect it against creditors or subsequent purchasers for value, the lease must be recorded. Mauney v. Norvell, 179 N.C. 628, 103 S.E. 372.

(3) As between two purchasers for value of the same interest in land, the one whose deed is first registered acquires title. Combes v. Adams, 150 N.C. 64, 63 S.E. 186; Dulin v. Williams, supra; Hayes v. Ricard, 245 N.C. 687, 97 S.E. 2d 105.

(4) Actual knowledge, however full and formal, of a grantee in a registered deed of a prior unregistered deed or lease will not defeat his title as a purchaser for value in the absence of fraud or matters creating estoppel. Piano Co. v. Spruill, 150 N.C. 168, 63 S.E. 723; Black- [*36] nall v. Hancock, 182 N.C. 369, 109 S.E. 72; Patterson v. Bryant, 216 N.C. 550, 5 S.E. 2d 849; Eller v. Arnold, 230 N.C. 418, 53 S.E. 2d 266; Dulin v. Williams, supra.

The defendant is relying upon what was said in Trust Co. v. Braznell, 227 N.C. 211, 41 S.E. 2d 744, as follows: “When a grantee accepts the conveyance of real property subject to an outstanding claim or interest evidenced by an unrecorded instrument executed by his grantor, he takes the estate burdened by such claim or interest. By his acceptance of the deed he ratifies the unrecorded instrument, agrees to stand seized subject thereto and estops himself from asserting its invalidity. Bank v. Vass, 130 N.C. 590 (41 S.E. 791); Bank v. Smith, supra (186 N.C. 635, 120 S.E. 215); Hardy v. Fryer, 194 N.C. 420, 139 S.E. 833; Hardy v. Abdallah, 192 N.C. 45, 133 S.E. 195.”

It will be noted, however, that in the Braznell case the deed contained the following statement with respect to the outstanding leases: “ ‘It is understood and agreed that this conveyance is made subject to the leases of the several tenants; * * V ” The grantors and grantee had agreed to include in the deed a provision which would fully protect the lease of the plaintiff and the leases of the other tenants. This the deed did not do. Hardy v. Fryer, 194 N.C. 420, 139 S.E. 833. Therefore, the action was for the reformation of the deed based on mutual mistake. However, this Court did not uphold the validity of the unrecorded leases because the grantee had notice of their existence. The Court explicitly denied such claim. Instead, the Court allowed the unrecorded lease of the plaintiff to be superior because the grantee had agreed to such a result in his contract of purchase and had the deed prepared by his attorney, which did not protect the leaseholders as called for in the sales agreement.

In the case of Hardy v. Fryer, supra, Brogden, J., speaking for the Court, said: “The principles deducible from our decisions upon the subject of the sufficiency of the references necessary to impart vitality to a prior unregistered encumbrance, may be stated as follows:

“1. The creditor holding the prior unregistered encumbrance must be named and identified with certainty.
“2. The property must be conveyed ‘subject to’ or in subordination to such prior encumbrance.
“3. The amount of such prior encumbrance must be definitely stated.
“4. The reference to the prior unregistered encumbrance must amount to a ratification and adoption thereof.
“The theory out of which these principles grow, is that the reference to the unregistered encumbrance, if made with sufficient certainty,[*37] creates a trust or agreement that the property is held subject thereto. * * *»

It has been held that a mere reference tó a prior encumbrance not amounting to a ratification of it, and where the conveyance is not expressly made subject to the first, except as it may comply with the requirements of the registration law, the first instrument will be subject to the second instrument where the second one is recorded first. Hardy v. Abdallah, 192 N.C. 45, 133 S.E. 195.

We hold that the reference in the deed from the McCraneys to these plaintiffs was not sufficient to make such deed, when registered, subordinate to the defendant’s unrecorded lease.

The defendant is wholly responsible for its present situation. It waited eighteen months before filing its lease for registration in Cherokee County, at which time the plaintiffs’ deed had been recorded for more than eight months.

On the second question, are the plaintiffs estopped by accepting the rent according to the terms of the lease for more than two years? the answer is found in the case of Mauney v. Norvell, supra. “The court erroneously held that the plaintiff, by accepting rent, was estopped to demand possession. * * * He is entitled to rents as long as defendant remains in possession * * *. Acceptance of rents by the landlord does not create a tenancy from year to year nor preclude the landlord from recovery. * * The receipt of money for the use of premises is not inconsistent with a demand for possession, for it has not misled the defendant nor put him to any disadvantage. * * *”

“It is essential to an equitable estoppel that the person asserting the estoppel shall have done or omitted some act or changed his position in reliance upon the representations or conduct of the person sought to be estopped. A change of position which will fulfill this element of estop-pel must be actual, substantial, and justified.” 31 C.J.S., Estoppel, § 72(b), page 442.

The judgment of the court below will be upheld.

Affirmed.