Crocker Ft Al v. Vann
Decision Date | 27 October 1926 |
Docket Number | (No. 84.) |
Citation | 135 S.E. 127 |
Parties | CROCKER Ft al. v. VANN et al. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
On October 20, 1884, the commissioner, W. P. Shaw, reported the sale to the court, stating in substance that on the day of the sale the parties had entered into a private agreement wherein it was stipulated that A. I. Parker, Martha W. Parker, and William Jordan should become the purchasers of the property for $18,000, and that "the property described in the complaints sold for the sum of $18,000 in the way in which the sale is heretofore explained."
J. J. Jordan died in 1890, leaving him surviving a widow, Mary Jordan, and Etta Jordan and Bettie Picot, his only children and heirs at law. Etta Jordan, daughter of J. J. Jordan, afterwards married Crocker, and is plaintiff in this John E. Vann and P. B. Picot were administrators of J. J. Jordan.
Nothing further was done in the matter until April, 1891, when Vann and Picot, administrators of J. J. Jordan, made a motion in the cause in each of the special proceedings, praying for a guardian ad litem for Etta Jordan and Bettie Picot, minor children of J. J. Jordan, deceased, and further requesting a confirmation of the sale of the property by W. P. Shaw, commissioner, in accordance with his report of October 20, 1884. On November 13, 1891, the clerk of the superior court confirmed the sale in each of said special proceedings and directed in each decree of confirmation that the commissioner "proceed to collect so much of said purchase money as is due to the administrators of said J. J. Jordan, and upon payment thereof to make title to the purchasers."
At this stage of the proceedings, all parties were brought in, and there were various contentions and controversies involving, the partnership business of Jordan & Parker, which are not pertinent to the decision of this case. Finally, at the spring term, 1893, of the superor court of Hertford county, the following judgment was entered:
Martha W. Parker died in 1914, intestate and without issue, and the plaintiff is one of her nieces. Her husband, A. I. Parker, died in January, 1920, leaving a last will and testament, naming John E. Vann as his executor and authorizing him to make sale, either publicly or privately, of all his real estate not specifically devised. None of the property involved in this action was specifically devised under said will except Dickinson's square, which was devised to the defendants John R. Jordan and W. Mills Jordan. The defendants John R. Jordan and W. Mills Jordan are the sons of William Jordan, who died intestate in 1913.
The cause came on for trial, and the judge directed the jury to answer the issues in favor of defendants. From judgment thereon plaintiffs appealed.
At the close of all the evidence, the plaintiffs stated and admitted in open court that the plaintiff Etta Jordan Crocker claimed no interest in said lands as an heir at law of her father, Joseph J. Jordan, and was claiming only as an heir of Martha W. Parker.
Bridger & Eley, of Winton, and Travis & Travis, of Halifax, for appellants.
Winston & Matthews, of Windsor, Stanley Winborne, of Murfreesboro, and W. D. Boone, of Winton, for appellees.
The plaintiff claims a one-twelfth undivided interest in the land involved in this controversy as heir at law of her aunt, Martha W. Parker. The defendants claim the land under the will of A. I. Parker, the husband of Martha W. Parker. The first question therefore to be determined is whether or not Martha W. Parker, upon her death in 1914, owned an interest in said laud. If she did, the plaintiff is entitled to recover. If she did not, the plaintiff has no interest in the land and the judgment of the court was correct.
The record discloses that the land in controversy, except the Old Town Farm, was originally conveyed to Joseph Jordan, John Jordan, William Jordan, and Martha Jordan, who afterwards married A. I. Parker. After the special proceedings for partition were instituted, the contract of August 4, 1884, was duly entered into by the parties. On that date Martha W. Parker owned a one-fourth undivided interest in all the land except the Old Town Farm. There was a dispute as to whether or not the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Smith
...223 N.C. 356, 26 S.E.2d 918; Wood v. Wilder, 222 N.C. 622, 24 S.E.2d 474; Burroughs v. Womble, 205 N.C. 432, 171 S.E. 616; Crocker v. Vann, 192 N.C. 422, 135 S.E. 127; Garris v. Tripp, 192 N.C. 211, 134 S.E. 461; Speas v. Woodhouse, 162 N.C. 66, 77 S.E. 1000; Sprinkle v. Spainhour, 149 N.C.......
-
Capps v. Massey
...E. 571; Best v. Utley, 189 N. C. at page 361, 127 S. E. 337; Garner v. Horner, 191 N. C. at page 540, 132 S. E. 290; Crocker v. Vann, 192 N. C. at page 429, 135 S. E. 127. See Art. 9, sec. 6, Const, of N. C. In Whitten v. Peace, supra, at page 302, 303, of 188 N. C, 124 S. E. 571, 574, we f......
-
Capps v. Massey
... ... 571; Best v ... Utley, 189 N.C. at page 361, 127 S.E. 337; Garner v ... Horner, 191 N.C. at page 540, 132 S.E. 290; Crocker ... v. Vann, 192 N.C. at page 429, 135 S.E. 127. See Art. 9, ... sec. 6, Const. of N. C ... In ... Whitten v. Peace, supra, at ... ...
-
Justice v. Mitchell, 161
...a deed) which professes and appears to pass the title, but fails to do so.' Seals v. Seals, 165 N.C. 409, 81 S.E. 613; Crocker v. Vann, 192 N.C. 422, 135 S.E. 127; Ennis v. Ennis, 195 N.C. 320, 142 S.E. 8; Glass v. Lynchburg Shoe Co., 212 N.C. 70, 192 S.E. 899; 1 Am.Jur., Adverse Possession......