The plaintiff objected and assigned error to the submission of the issues and tendered other issues. We think that the issues as submitted arise on the pleadings and present to the jury inquiries as to all the essential matters or determinative facts in dispute.
In Hooper v. Trust Co., 190 N. C., 423 (428), speaking to the subject, we find: “The test of the sufficiency of issues is, 'did the issues afford the parties opportunity to introduce all pertinent evidence and apply it fairly?’ Tuttle v. Tuttle, 146 N. C., 484; Deloache v. Deloache, 189 N. C., 394, 400; Elliott v. Power Co., ante, 62. When issues meet the test they satisfy all the requirements of Rudasill v. Falls, 92 N. C., *578222, and Gordon v. Collett, 104 N. C., 381.” Erskine v. Motor Co., 187 N. C., 826 (831-2).
Issues submitted are largely in tbe discretion of the court below, and if not prejudicial or affect a substantial right ordinarily an exception and assignment of error will not be sustained as in the present case.
“To constitute a mortgage, no particular words are necessary 'If a security for money is intended, that security is a mortgage, though not having on its face the form of a mortgage; it is the essence of a mortgage that it is a security.’ Jones Chattel Mortgage, sec. 24. McCoy v. Lassiter, 95 N. C., 88, 92. While 'no particular form is necessary to constitute a mortgage,’ Yet the words must clearly indicate the creation of a lien, specify the debt to secure which it is given, and upon the satisfaction of which the lien is to be discharged, and the property upon which it is to take effect.’ 'The statement that the creditor is to have a lien, and that on default he may take possession and sell, . . . sufficiently discloses the intent.’ Harris v. Jones, 83 N. C., 318.” Britt v. Harrell, 105 N. C., 10, 12.
The court below charged “If you believe all the evidence and by its greater weight it will be your duty to answer the second issue 'Yes.’ ” In this we can see no error.
The defendant testified, in part: “I owe Mr. Grier a balance of $64.00 on the mule. Before I planted my crop last year I had an understanding with Mr. Grier as to how I would pay the balance. After I had paid up to November $96.00, I told Mr. Grier I had gathered all of my vegetables and paid him all that I was able to pay and I had come to see him to see if I couldn’t make some arrangements with him to carry this $64.00 over for me, and if he wouldn’t let me know so I could get some one to lift part of the payments for me. He said 'I will carry you over. I wouldn’t dare take the mule away from you as nice as you have taken care of him. It shows that you respect him.’ ”
On this aspect the court below gave the contentions of both parties, and charged the jury: “Did the plaintiff, Joseph W. Grier, agree to extend the time for payment of the note, as defendant contends and alleges? That is a question of fact for you to determine from all the evidence. The burden is upon the defendant to satisfy you from the evidence, and by its greater weight, that there was such an agreement, and that such an agreement existed.” There is no exception or assignment of error by plaintiff to the evidence or charge on this issue. If there was such an agreement made, there is no contention that there was no consideration to support it.
In Exum v. Lynch, 188 N. C., 392 (395), it is said: “Generally speaking, it may be said that the term 'consideration,’ in the sense it is used in legal parlance, as affecting the enforceability of contracts, con*579sist either in some right, interest, gain, advantage, benefit or profit accruing to one party, usually the promisor, or some forbearance, detriment, prejudice, inconvenience, disadvantage, loss or responsibility, act, or service given, suffered, or undertaken by the promisee. Institute v. Mebane, 165 N. C., 644. It is usually sufficient to define it as a benefit to the promisor, or a detriment to the promisee. Cherokee Co. v. Meroney, 173 N. C., 653; Findly v. Ray, 50 N. C., 125; 6 R. C. L., 654; 13 C. J., 311.”
The plaintiff excepts and assigns error to the following portions of the charge below, which we cannot sustain: “The court instructs you if you answer the third issue Yes, then it having admitted that the mule was seized by plaintiff in this action in May, 1932, that under that state of facts plaintiff would have seized the property before the indebtedness became due, then he would not be the owner of the mule as of that date, or entitled to possession as of that date. ... If the debt was due, and under the terms of the note offered in evidence, he would have a right to seize the property, but if the debt was not due until sometime after that, and the property still in the possession of the defendant, then plaintiff would not be entitled to possession of the property in May, 1932.”
Jones Chattel Mortgages and Conditional Sales, Vol. 2 (6th ed., 1933), part sec. 426, p. 175: “The right of possession of mortgaged chattels vests in the mortgagee immediately upon the execution of the mortgage if there be-no express or implied stipulation in it to the contrary, whether the mortgage debt be due and payable or not.” (Italics ours.)
“In North Carolina and many other states the common law prevails, and the mortgage deed passes the legal title at once, defeasible by the subsequent performance of its condition. The title then draws the right of possession, and the mortgagee may enter into possession of the property at once or at any time unless restrained by express provision or necessary implication, which does not appear in the cases before us. 1 Jones Mortgages, sec. 58.” Hinson v. Smith, 118 N. C., 503, 505. The right of possession of mortgaged chattels vests in the mortgagee immediately upon the execution of the mortgage, if there is no express or implied stipulation in it to the contrary, whether the mortgage debt be due and payable or not. . . . The right of possession follows the right of property. Hinson v. Smith, supra.
In the present case we think the evidence was to the effect that if there was not an express, there was at least an implied stipulation that the mortgagor should have possession of the “yellow bay colored mare mule,” to make his crop and keep possession of the mule until the fall of 1932. The jury so found on the third issue. Harris v. R. R., 190 *580N. C., 480 (483). We do not think Jackson v. Hall, 84 N. C., 489, or S. v. Stinnett, 203 N. C., 829, applicable. See Narron v. Chevrolet Co., ante, 307.
The exception and assignment of error as to the charge on the greater weight of the evidence cannot be sustained — it is too technical. The able judge in the court below tried the case with care and in accordance with'the law in this jurisdiction. For the reasons given, in the judgment of the court below, we find
No error.