Everett v. Sanderson
Decision Date | 11 November 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 391,391 |
Citation | 78 S.E.2d 408,238 N.C. 564 |
Parties | EVERETT et al. v. SANDERSON et ux. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Summersill & Summersill, Jacksonville, and Moore & Corbett, Burgaw, for plaintiffs, appellees.
Wyatt E. Blake, Burgaw, for defendants, appellants.
The defendants assert primarily that the evidence of the plaintiffs does not suffice to show adverse possession for twenty years within the purview of G.S. § 1-40, and that the action ought to have been involuntarily nonsuited on that ground in the trial court.
When the evidence is interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, it discloses these facts:
1. On January 12, 1948, L. W. Everett executed a deed sufficient in form to convey the 210 acres to the plaintiffs in fee.
2. For at least thirty-five consecutive years antedating his deed, L. W. Everett put the 210 acres to the only uses to which they could then be applied. In so doing, he kept and fed hogs on the land throughout each year; he pastured cattle on the land during the entire grazing season of each year; and he permitted rent-paying tenants to operate fisheries on the land during the entire fishing season of each year. He maintained hog-pens and a fish house on the land in connection with these operations. Moreover, he cut cedar trees on the land when he could find a market for cedar posts.
3. The activities of L. W. Everett and his rent-paying tenants on the 210 acres were carried on openly and publicly, and were known to all the people in the vicinity of the premises.
4. In carrying on their activities, L. W. Everett and his rent-paying tenants employed the entire 210 acres, whose external boundaries were plainly delineated by a fence, a high hill, and the waters of the ocean and a bay.
5. During the entire period specified in paragraph 2, L. W. Everett openly and publicly claimed title in fee to the 210 acres, and excluded from them those persons who undertook to enter upon them without his permission.
6. The defendants entered upon the 210 acres against the will of the plaintiffs a few months before the issuance of the summons.
A just and learned judge, the late Justice Platt D. Walker, gave us this celebrated definition of adverse possession in the leading case of Locklear v. Savage, 159 N.C. 236, 74 S.E. 347, 348:
When the facts in evidence are laid alongside this famous definition, it is manifest that the trial judge rightly refused to dismiss the action upon a compulsory nonsuit. The facts are ample to show that the grantor of the plaintiffs was in the actual possession of the locus in quo under known and visible lines and boundaries for the full statutory period of twenty years, and that his actual possession during the entire statutory period was open, notorious, and visible, exclusive, continuous, and uninterrupted and under claim of right or title by him. G.S. § 1-40; Alexander v. Richmond Cedar Works, 177 N.C. 137, 98 S.E. 312; Wall v. Wall, 142 N.C. 387, 55 S.E. 283; Loftin v. Cobb, 46 N.C. 406, Bynum v. Carter, 26 N.C. 310; Williams v. Buchanan, 23 N.C. 535, 35 Am.Dec. 760; Simpson v. Blount, 14 N.C. 34; Carter v. Stewart, 149 Ark. 189, 231 S.W. 887, 232 S.W. 936; Kellogg v. Huffman, 137 Cal.App. 278, 30 P.2d 593; Berry v. Cohn, 47 Cal.App. 19, 189 P. 1044; McRae v. Ketchum, 138 Fla. 610, 189 So. 853; Davis v. Haines, 349 I11. 622, 182 N.E. 718; O'Banion v. Simpson, 44 Nev. 188, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cutts v. Casey
...and requirements for such possession have been stated many times. State v. Johnson, 278 N.C. 126, 179 S.E.2d 371; Everett v. Sanderson, 238 N.C. 564, 78 S.E. 408; Price v. Whisnant, 236 N.C. 381, 72 S.E.2d 851; Locklear v. Oxendine, Supra; Smith v. Fite, 92 N.C. 319. See 1 N.C. Index 2nd Ad......
-
Mallet v. Huske, 606
...subsequent occasions. Holmes v. Carr, 172 N.C. 213, 90 S.E. 152; Clendenin v. Clendenin, 181 N.C. 465, 107 S.E. 458; Everett v. Sanderson, 238 N.C. 564, 78 S.E.2d 408. Avery, J., writing in Shaffer v. Gaynor, 117 N.C. 15, 23 S.E. 154, said: 'A possession that ripens into title must be such ......
-
Brewer v. Brewer
...would be irrelevant in support of a paper title, it had an important bearing upon the notoriety of his possession.' see Everett v. sanderson, N.C., 78 S.E.2d 408. The evidence disclosed on this record clearly establishes the fact that George W. Brewer entered upon the premises in question i......
-
Knight's Will, In re, 668
...objection. Tucker v. Moorefield, 250 N.C. 340, 344, 108 S.E.2d 637; Price v. Gray, 246 N.C. 162, 165, 97 S.E.2d 844; Everett v. Sanderson, 238 N.C. 564, 567, 78 S.E.2d 408. The third and sixth assignments of error are based on exceptions taken by caveators to the rulings of the trial judge ......