104 F.2d 472 (4th Cir. 1939), 4427, Sucro v. Worthington

Docket Nº4427, 4428.
Citation104 F.2d 472
Party NameSUCRO v. WORTHINGTON et al. SAME v. MARTIN et al.
Case DateJune 12, 1939
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 472

104 F.2d 472 (4th Cir. 1939)

SUCRO

v.

WORTHINGTON et al.

SAME

v.

MARTIN et al.

Nos. 4427, 4428.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

June 12, 1939

Page 473

M. B. Simpson, of Elizabeth City, N.C. (R. Clarence Dozier, of Elizabeth City, N.C., on the brief), for appellant.

W. D. Pruden, of Edenton, N.C., and J. Kenyon Wilson, of Elizabeth City, N.C. (Worth & Horner, of Elizabeth City, N.C., on the brief), for appellees.

Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.

PARKER, Circuit Judge.

These are appeals in two actions instituted to try title to land. From verdict and judgment in favor of the defendants in each case, the plaintiff has appealed. Plaintiff is the same person who was plaintiff and appellee in the recent case of Peterson et al. v. Sucro, 4 Cir., 101 F.2d 282. In both of the cases at bar she relied upon the same title held good by this court in the Peterson case. Defendants claimed different portions of the land covered by the Greenleaf grant, under which plaintiff claimed, and relied upon grants to Peter Baum as invalidating the Greenleaf grant. They relied also upon adverse possession. The plaintiff's sole contention in each appeal is that the evidence relied upon by defendants was legally insufficient and that verdict should have been directed in her favor, as was done in the Peterson case, supra, affirmed by the court.

In so far as the Peter Baum grants are concerned, we find nothing in the records in these cases to distinguish them from the Peterson case; and what is said in the opinion in that case as to the invalidity of those grants and the attempted location thereof is controlling here and need not be repeated.

The only remaining question which we need consider is as to the sufficiency of the evidence relied upon by the defendants in the Worthington case, No. 4427, to establish adverse possession, as no contention is made before us that there was sufficient evidence to adverse possession in No. 4428. The deeds under which defendants claim in No. 4427 embrace a tract of one hundred and fifty acres of land, but only a few acres of this fall within the boundaries of the grant under which plaintiff claims. Since plaintiff is claiming under the superior title, we may ignore evidence as to acts of possession by defendants outside the lappage; for the rule is well settled that constructive...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • 167 S.E.2d 766 (N.C. 1969), 33, Price v. Tomrich Corp.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • June 18, 1969
    ...occupied by the junior claimant.' Accord, Boomer v. Gibbs, Supra; McLean v. Smith, 106 N.C. 172, 11 S.E. 184; Sucro v. Worthington, 104 F.2d 472, 473 (4th Cir. 1939). The transcript contains no evidence tending to show any actual possession of the lappage by defendant and its predecessors, ......
  • 42 So.2d 355 (Fla. 1949), Sudduth v. Hutchison
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court of Florida
    • August 1, 1949
    ...not decide, under our view of the case; but see Ben-Jay Inv. Co. v. Stillman, 114 Fla. 703, 154 So. 829; Sucro v. Worthington, 4 Cir., 104 F.2d 472--the essential question on the issue is whether, conceding the facts stated to be true, the allegations were of such complete defensive quality......
  • 106 F.2d 383 (4th Cir. 1939), 4468, Virginia-Carolina Tie & Wood Co., Inc. v. Dunbar
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
    • August 28, 1939
    ...would ripen into ownership. Patrick v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 176 N.C. 660, 97 S.E. 657, 659; Sucro v. Worthington, 4 Cir. 104 F.2d 472. Plaintiff contends that there was an interruption of this possession, but no such interruption was shown. It is true that one of the witnesses ......
  • 457 F.Supp. 870 (S.D.Tex. 1978), Civ. A. 76-H-611, Elkins' Estate v. United States
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 5th Circuit Southern District of Texas
    • September 25, 1978
    ...obviously did not reflect the parties' intent at the time the transfers of funds were made. Glascock v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 104 F.2d 474 (4th Cir. 1939) was a case, like Labombarde, where at the time of the conveyance of property from child to parent, there was obviously no in......
4 cases
  • 167 S.E.2d 766 (N.C. 1969), 33, Price v. Tomrich Corp.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • June 18, 1969
    ...occupied by the junior claimant.' Accord, Boomer v. Gibbs, Supra; McLean v. Smith, 106 N.C. 172, 11 S.E. 184; Sucro v. Worthington, 104 F.2d 472, 473 (4th Cir. 1939). The transcript contains no evidence tending to show any actual possession of the lappage by defendant and its predecessors, ......
  • 42 So.2d 355 (Fla. 1949), Sudduth v. Hutchison
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court of Florida
    • August 1, 1949
    ...not decide, under our view of the case; but see Ben-Jay Inv. Co. v. Stillman, 114 Fla. 703, 154 So. 829; Sucro v. Worthington, 4 Cir., 104 F.2d 472--the essential question on the issue is whether, conceding the facts stated to be true, the allegations were of such complete defensive quality......
  • 106 F.2d 383 (4th Cir. 1939), 4468, Virginia-Carolina Tie & Wood Co., Inc. v. Dunbar
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
    • August 28, 1939
    ...would ripen into ownership. Patrick v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 176 N.C. 660, 97 S.E. 657, 659; Sucro v. Worthington, 4 Cir. 104 F.2d 472. Plaintiff contends that there was an interruption of this possession, but no such interruption was shown. It is true that one of the witnesses ......
  • 457 F.Supp. 870 (S.D.Tex. 1978), Civ. A. 76-H-611, Elkins' Estate v. United States
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 5th Circuit Southern District of Texas
    • September 25, 1978
    ...obviously did not reflect the parties' intent at the time the transfers of funds were made. Glascock v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 104 F.2d 474 (4th Cir. 1939) was a case, like Labombarde, where at the time of the conveyance of property from child to parent, there was obviously no in......