Harrell v. . Godwin

Avery, J. (after stating the case). The sale by Harrell to Southard was conditional, and made before The Code (§ 1275) was enacted, November 1, 1883. The effect of such a contract before that date was to leave the title in the plaintiff, though Southard was exercising all the rights of ownership over the machine. It, therefore, operated, so far as it affected the rights of others dealing with Southard, as a secret lien. The purpose of the General Assembly in changing the law was to protect others from loss by purchase of property subject to such incumbrance. The question upon which this case depends is, whether the section mentioned operated only prospectively or retrospectively also. We think that it purports to apply, and does refer exclusively to, future contracts wherein title should be retained as a security for purchase money. The section is as follows: “ All conditional sales of personal property, in which the title is retained by the bargainor, shall be reduced to writing and registered in the same manner, for the same fees, and with the same legal effect, as is provided for chattel mortgages.” See also § 1254. *332 The language, “ shall be reduced to writing and registered,” was intended to operate only on sales to be made after November 1, 1883, when The Code became the law. Before that time conditional sales could be made verbally, but the contracts to be made in future were required to be written and registered. The case of • White v. Holly, 91 N. C., 67, cited by counsel to prove that the contract between Harrell and Southard could not operate as a lien, superior to that of a subsequent purchaser for value, or a mortgagee who registered his mortgage, throws no light upon the point in dispute in this case. In the case cited, the plaintiff offered a receipt for a part of the title money for a tract of land in evidence, in order to establish his right to specific performance. It was, on objection, held to be incompetent as evidence without registration under the provisions of § 1264, The Code, which had taken effect in November before the Court was held in January, 1884. If it had been previously registered it would have been admitted, and if in terms sufficient it would háve proven the contract and established the plaintiff’s right to a specific performance, as asked. No error. Affirmed.