Ashville Division, No. 15, Sons of Temperance v. Aston

• Decision Date: 28 February 1885
• Citation: 92 N.C. 588
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: ASHEVILLE DIVISION, NUMBER 15, SONS OF TEMPERANCE et als. v. ASTON.

92 N.C. 588

ASHEVILLE DIVISION, NUMBER 15, SONS OF TEMPERANCE et als.

v.ASTON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February Term, 1885.

This was the interpleaders' appeal in the foregoing action.

Two years after that suit was begun and the pleadings put in application was made to the Court by H. M. Parker and his wife M. E. Parker, to be allowed to interplead in the cause and set up a superior and independent title to the property in the latter, in opposition to the claims of both parties to the action. This with the consent of the plaintiff, they were permitted to do, and thereupon they file a complaint against the defendant, alleging the feme to be the owner of the locus in quo, the wrongful withholding, and they demand possession, with damages for detaining it??

Besides the facts found by the Court, contained in the record of the defendant's appeal, already determined, facts are found explanatory of the claim asserted on behalf of the interpleaders.

The judgment against M. Patton, under which his interest in the Sons of Temperance Hall was sold, was docketed in the Superior Court of Buncombe county in 1874, and executions were regularly issued thereon until 1882, when, under the last, the property was sold, and by the sheriff's deed conveyed to the said M. E. Parker. The defendant did not controvert these facts, but admitted that whatever interest remained in the judgment debtor, after the execution of the deed to him in 1863, in the property, liable to execution, passed to her.

Upon the rendition of judgment in favor of the plaintiff the interpleaders appealed.

Messrs. Theo. F. Davidson and Batchelor & Devereux, for the plaintiff corporation .

No counsel for the interpleaders.

Mr. James H. Merrimon, for the defendant .

SMITH, C. J. (after stating the facts).

Our ruling in the ??her appeal, that the title to the room, with facilities of access ?? it as described in the deed to the “Asheville Division, No. ??5, of the Sons of Temperance,” was in that corporation, and ??at the receiver had a right to recover possession for the purpose contemplated in his appointment, disposes adversely of the ??resent appeal, and a further examination of the subject would ??e superfluous. But we cannot let the occasion pass without ??me comment upon the manner in which the new controversy ??etween the interpleaders and both the original parties is intro??uced in the cause. It is warranted neither by the practice nor ??he Code.

In Keathly v. Branch, ...