Barneycastle v. Walker

• Decision Date: 28 February 1885
• Citation: 92 N.C. 198
• Parties: JOHN BARNEYCASTLE v. JOHN WALKER.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

92 N.C. 198

JOHN BARNEYCASTLE

v.JOHN WALKER.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February Term, 1885.

This was a CIVIL ACTION tried before McKoy, Judge, and a jury, at the February Term, 1885, of DAVIE Superior Court.

The plaintiff in his complaint alleged that in the fall of 1879 he rented the land in question from William Walker, Sr., his home place, the said Walker reserving the house and garden and truck patches, &c., and plaintiff occupied the same until August, 1880, when he again made a contract with said Walker for the rent of the same land for the next ensuing year, 1881; sowed wheat in the fall of 1880, and occupied the land as tenant of said Walker until after the death of said Walker, which occurred in the month of January, 1881.

That after the death of said Walker, the plaintiff had sowed oats, and was preparing to plant corn, &c., when the defendant took possession of the land and, by threats, prevented the plaintiff from further occupancy of said land, and alleged that he had been damaged to the amount of one hundred and seventy-five dollars.

The defendant denied the allegation of the plaintiff that he had leased the land from William Walker for the year 1881, and contended that the lease made by William Walker expired in the latter part of the year 1880.

The following issues were submitted to the jury:

1. Was the plaintiff rightfully in the possession of the lands described in the complaint in the year 1881?

2. Was the plaintiff wrongfully dispossessed of said land by defendant?

3. How much damages is the plaintiff entitled to recover?

After evidence by both parties tending to support their respective contentions, the jury responded to the first and second issues in the affirmative, and on the third issue assessed the plaintiff's damages at one hundred dollars.

During his argument before the jury, the counsel for defendant moved the Court to non-suit the plaintiff, upon the ground that the Superior Court had no jurisdiction of this action. The Court refused the motion and the defendant excepted, and upon the return of the verdict the Court pronounced judgment in favor of the plaintiff, according to the finding of the jury, from which the defendant appealed.

Messrs. Clement & Gaither, for plaintiff .

Messrs. Coke & Williamson, for defendant .

ASHE, J. (after stating the facts).

The sole question presented by the record is, whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction of the action?

The position taken by the defendant's counsel, if we understand his argument, was, yielding the agreement as to the rent of the premises for the year 1881-- it was only a contract for the use and occupation of the land for a year, and that there was an implied contract on the part of the lessor that he would not disturb the possession of the lessee during the time of his lease, and the entry of the defendant, as heir of the lessor, was a breach of that implied contract, and the action was to recover damages for the breach, and as the damages were laid at a sum under two hundred dollars, the Superior Court had no jurisdiction of the action.

He referred to the summons as proof that the action was ex contractu, because the defendant was summoned as administrator of W. Walker.

But the answer to that is, that the summons was against the defendant as such administrator, and against him individually, and the complaint seeks to charge him only in his individual character. This meets the objection. For the only office of...