Maxton Realty Co. v. Carter

BuowN, J. Tbe allegations of tbe complaint, stated succinctly, set forth tbat "Wilkinson and others owned a certain tract of land described in tbe complaint, which was sold by them to tbe plaintiff in 1909. Tbe deed to tbe plaintiff was recorded 4 May, 1915. Tbe plaintiff subdivided this land into lots, bad a map of tbe premises made and recorded tbe map in tbe book of official maps in tbe register’s office of Robeson County, and thereafter bad a sale of some of these lots. Several of tbe lots were purchased by Lena B. Carter, wife of tbe defendant, and tbe title was made direct from tbe Realty Company to her. It is alleged tbat tbe husband paid tbe purchase money. It is further alleged tbat a part of tbe purchase money received by Wilkinson from tbe plaintiff was paid to the defendant Carter by the said Wilkin-sons upon a debt which they owed him. At March Term, 1915, of Robeson Superior Court, defendant Carter obtained judgment against tbe said Wilkinsons, tbe original owners of tbe land, and this judgment was duly docketed prior to tbe date when tbe deed from tbe Wilkinsons to tbe plaintiff was registered. Execution w.as issued upon this judgment and levied upon tbe part of tbe lands now owned by tbe Realty Company, tbe plaintiff, and acquired from tbe Wilkinsons. In this action tbe plaintiff seeks to enjoin tbe sale of them. It is manifest to us tbat tbe complaint sets forth no cause of action. *7 Tbe docketing of the judgment was prior to. the registration of the deed, which gave the judgment a prior lien. It has been repeatedly held that a judgment taken and docketed after the delivery of the deed but prior to its registration is a superior lien upon the land. Tarboro v. Micks, 118 N. C., 162; Bostic v. Young, 116 N. C., 766; Francis v. Herren, 101 N. C., 497. The registration of the map cannot supply the lack of registration of the deed. The map professes to pass no title and is not even color of title. Williams v. Scott, 122 N. C., 545. The fact that Carter’s wife purchased some of the lots creates no estoppel upon the part of the husband which would prevent his collecting his judgment out of the lands belonging to the plaintiff. The wife did not hold the lots which had been conveyed to her by the plaintiff in trust for her husband. The fact that the latter paid the purchase money does not create a resulting trust in his favor. The law regards it as a gift to the wife. Arrington v. Arrington, 114 N. C., 116. The rights of the parties depend solely upon the registration laws. Eev., section 980. It is solely on account of a failure to comply with this statute that the plaintiff’s land may be subjected to the payment of the Carter judgment against the Wilkinsons. Affirmed.