Corbett v. Corbett
| Decision Date | 25 February 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 96,96 |
| Citation | 107 S.E.2d 165,249 N.C. 585 |
| Parties | R. L. CORBETT and wife, Callie Lillian Corbett v. S. L. CORBETT and wife, Maude A. Corbett; and J. C. Corbett and wife, Margaret Corbett. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Jones, Reed & Griffin, Kinston, for plaintiffs.
James & Speight, W. H. Watson, and M. E. Cavendish, Greenville, for defendants.
The plaintiffs' first assignment of error is to the overruling of their motion to make W. O. McGibbony, Trustee, and the Federal Land Bank of Columbia, South Carolina, parties defendant in this action.
In McIntosh, North Carolina Practice and Procedure, section 209, page 184, it is said: McIntosh, Practice and Procedure, 2d Ed., section 584, page 292; Gaither Corp. v. Skinner, 238 N.C. 254, 77 S.E.2d 659; Burgess v. Trevathan, 236 N.C. 157, 72 S.E.2d 231.
'The making of new parties defendants where they are not necessary is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge, and his refusal is not reviewable.' Guthrie v. City of Durham, 168 N.C. 573, 84 S.E. 859.
We hold that the parties sought to be brought in and made parties defendant are not necessary parties in the determination of the rights litigated between the present parties. Hence, this assignment of error is overruled.
The ninth assignment of error is directed to the refusal of the court below to continue the case pending appeal from the ruling on the motion to make additional parties.
There is no merit in this assignment of error. The court below having exercised its discretion in denying the motion to make additional parties, who are not necessary parties, but at most only proper parties, an appeal therefrom would have been premature and subject to dismissal. The ruling of the court below did not impair any substantial right of the plaintiffs which would warrant an appeal. McPherson v. Morrisette, 243 N.C. 626, 91 S.E.2d 574; Burgess v. Trevathan, supra; City of Shelby v. Lackey, 235 N.C. 343, 69 S.E.2d 607; Horne v. Horne, 205 N.C. 309, 171 S.E. 91; Bank of Montgomery v. McCraw, 203 N.C. 860, 166 S.E. 790; State Planters' Bank & Trust Co. v. Whitehurst, 201 N.C. 504, 160 S.E. 757; Spruill v. Bank of Plymouth, 163 N.C. 43, 79 S.E. 262.
The plaintiffs' sixth and seventh assignments of error are directed to the admission of evidence to the effect that from 1922 until 1929 the lands in controversy were listed for taxes in the name of J. C. Corbett, and since 1929 the lands have been listed for taxes in the name of S. L. Corbett and the taxes have been paid by him.
The listing and payment of taxes, while not sufficient alone to show adverse possession, evidence of such listing and payment of taxes is competent and may be considered in connection with other circumstances as tending to show claim of title. Sessoms v. McDonald, 237 N.C. 720, 75 S.E.2d 904; Perry v. Alford, 225 N.C. 146, 33 S.E.2d 665; Pasley v. Richardson, 119 N.C. 449, 26 S.E. 32; Ellis v. Harris, 106 N.C. 395, 11 S.E. 248. These assignments of error are overruled.
The eighth assignment of error is based on the exception to the allowance of S. L. Corbett's motion for judgment as of nonsuit.
In connection with this assignment of error we deem it appropriate to consider the character and effect of the deed executed by Addie O. Corbett to J. C. Corbett. In the first place, this Court has held that there is an effective delivery of a deed when the grantor causes the instrument to be recorded, notwithstanding the grantee knew nothing of its execution or of its having been filed of record. Buchanan v. Clark, 164 N.C. 56, 80 S.E. 424; Robbins v. Rascoe, 120 N.C. 79, 26 S.E. 807, 36 L.R.A. 238, 58 Am.St.Rep. 774; Phillips v. Houston, 50 N.C. 302.
Where a deed is executed and recorded, it is presumed that the grantee therein will accept the deed made for his benefit. This is so, although the transaction occurs without the grantee's knowledge. Such presumption will prevail in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Ballard v. Ballard, 230 N.C. 629, 55 S.E.2d 316; Buchanan v. Clark, supra; Robbins v. Rascoe, supra; 16 Am.Jur. Deeds, section 389, page 658.
Heirs cannot attack the deed of an ancestor except for fraud or undue influence in securing the execution thereof. Gadsby v. Dyer,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.
...the deed." See also Bowden v. Parrish, 9 S.E. 616 (Va.1889); Colee v. Colee, 122 Ind. 109, 23 N.E. 687 (1890); Corbett v. Corbett, 249 N.C. 585, 107 S.E.2d 165 (1959); but the presumption will not arise where the deed conveys a burden to the grantee: County of Worth v. Jorgenson, 253 N.W.2d......
-
Metcalf v. Black Dog Realty, LLC
...no evidence that the County did not accept the July deed and therefore the County's acceptance is presumed. See Corbett v. Corbett, 249 N.C. 585, 590, 107 S.E.2d 165, 169 (1959) ("Where a deed is executed and recorded, it is presumed that the grantee therein will accept the deed made for hi......
-
In re Rose
...and imposes no burdens or duties on him or her. Smith v. Owens, 91 Fla. 995, 1000, 108 So. 891, 893 (1926); accord Corbett v. Corbett, 249 N.C. 585, 590, 107 S.E.2d 165 (1959). When a grantor causes a deed conferring substantial benefits on the grantee to be recorded, it creates prima facie......
-
State v. Brooks
...their taxes, would be competent in evidence to show that their possession was adverse and in the character of owner. Corbett v. Corbett, 249 N.C. 585, 107 S.E.2d 165. In Mallet v. Huske, 262 N.C. 177, 136 S.E.2d 553, Rodman, J., made this quotation from Locklear v. Savage, 159 N.C. 236, 74 ......