Judges: Montgomery, Clark, Furches, Faircloth
Filed Date: 3/22/1898
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
In May, 1892, Latham Skinner sold and delivered to the Greenville Land and Improvement Company a steam engine and boiler at the price of $200. Afterwards the defendants, being in debt for money borrowed, executed two mortgages upon its real property described in the complaint. The property was sold (159) under the mortgages in December, 1892, and bought by P. B. Taliaferro, who conveyed to S.C. Hamilton, Jr., and the last named afterwards conveyed the property to the defendant. On 5 July, 1893, the plaintiff obtained a judgment in a court of a justice of the peace against the Greenville Land and Improvement Company for the price of the engine and boiler, and the amount was declared to be for materials furnished by the plaintiff to the company purchasers, under section 1255 of The Code. The justice's judgment became one of the Superior Court by transcript on 8 July, 1893. The real estate was sold under an execution issued upon the judgment, and was purchased by the plaintiff. *Page 99
The present action is for the possession of the real estate by the plaintiff, who was the purchaser thereof at the execution sale. The claim of the plaintiff is that the engine and boiler were materials furnished under section 1255 of The Code, and that the sale of the land under the mortgages was void as to the debt due by the Greenville Land and Improvement Company to Latham Skinner for the engine and boiler.
It is not claimed by the plaintiff that the sale of the engine and boiler constituted a lien upon the land as for materials furnished. No lien was ever filed. Nor is there any claim set up by the plaintiff under section 685 of The Code, for no action to enforce the collection of the purchase price was commenced within sixty days after the registration of the mortgages. If the engine and boiler can be considered as materials furnished under section 1255 of The Code, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the land. If not, then he acquired no rights at the sheriff's sale. In Coal Co. v. Electric Light Co.,
No error. *Page 100