Raynor v. . Raynor

*184 CoNNcm, J. Three questions are presented by this appeal.’ If these questions are answered, each, in the affirmative, the judgment of the Superior Court must be affirmed; otherwise, the judgment must be reversed. The questions are : 1. Was it the intention of John I. Raynor, as disclosed by the language used by him in the clause contained in his deeds to the defendants, respectively, construed in the light of all the facts shown in the record, to impose upon the grantee in each of said deeds personal liability for the payment of one-ninth of the amount' of his indebtedness to the Greensboro Joint Stock Land Bank at his death? 2. If so, was it his intention also that such amount should be a specific charge in the nature of an equitable lien on the land conveyed by said deed to the grantee named therein? 3. Are the plaintiffs, as grantees in the deeds executed by John I. Raynor and conveying to them shares of his lands which were encumbered by his mortgage to the Greensboro Joint Stock Land Bank to secure the payment of his indebtedness to said bank, in consequence of the foreclosure of said mortgage and the sale of the said shares under the power of sale contained in the mortgage, entitled to recover of each of the defendants a sum of money equal to one-ninth of said indebtedness at the date of said foreclosure and sale, and to have said sum adjudged a specific charge in the nature of an equitable lien on the land conveyed by the said John I. Raynor to each of the defendants? In the briefs filed in this Court on behalf of the defendants as appellants, it is conceded that the first question must be answered in the affirmative on the principle that when the grantee in a deed has accepted the deed and claims under it, he assumes all liabilities imposed upon him by the deed. See Tripp v. Nobles, 136 N. C., 99, 48 S. E., 675. The second question must also be answered in the affirmative, on the authority of Marsh v. Marsh, 200 N. C., 746, 158 S. E., 400. In that case it was held that where a father and mother conveyed their lands to their son, to effect a family settlement, and provided in their deed that the son should pay a certain sum of money to his sister, the son, having accepted the deed, and claiming under it, became personally liable for the payment of the money to his sister, and that his sister was entitled to an equitable lien on the land conveyed by the deed to the son for the amount of money which he was directed by the grantors in the deed to pay to her. The third question must also be answered in the affirmative. The defendants having failed to pay to the Greensboro Joint Stock Land Bank the sums of money which were specifically charged on the lands conveyed to them by John I. Raynor, with the result that the plaintiffs have lost the lands conveyed to them by the said John I. Raynor, the *185 plaintiffs are entitled to recover of each, of the defendants the sum of money which the defendants were required to pay to the Greensboro Joint Stock Land Bank in partial discharge of the indebtedness of John I. Raynor, which was secured by his mortgage on the lands of the plaintiffs, on the principle of equitable contribution. Lancaster v. Stanfield, 191 N. C., 340, 132 S. E., 21; Taylor v. Everett, 188 N. C., 247, 124 S. E., 316. It follows that there is no error in the judgment of the Superior Court. The judgment is Affirmed.