Fuller v. Wadsworth
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | DANIEL |
| Citation | Fuller v. Wadsworth, 2 Ired. 263, 24 N.C. 263, 38 Am.Dec. 692 (N.C. 1842) |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1842 |
| Parties | DEN ON DEMISE OF CHARLES FULLER v. BARNABAS WADSWORTH. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Where a demise in a declaration in ejectment was laid to be on the first day of January, and the service of the declaration appeared by the sheriff's return to have been made on the thirty first of December preceding, held that, after the defendant has confessed the lease, entry and ouster, he is precluded from making any objection to the declaration on that account.
A mortgagee, after the day of payment passed, may bring an action of ejectment against the mortgagor, without any notice to quit or demand of possession.
An appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court of Lenoir county, at Spring Term, 1842, his Honor Judge BATTLE presiding. This was an action of ejectment on the trial, of which the following facts were agreed upon. On the 4th of November, 1835, the premises in dispute, and of which the defendant was in possession, were mortgaged by him to William D. Mosely. After the mortgage became forfeited, to wit, on the 23d of November, 1838, the said William D. Mosely, dy deed, conveyed his interest in the said mortgaged premises to the lessor of the plaintiff, Charles Fuller. At Spring Term, 1838, of Lenoir Superior Court of law, the lessor of the plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant Wadsworth, upon which a writ of fi fa was issued and levied by the sheriff upon the said Wadsworth's equity of redemption in the said lands; and on the first Monday of July, 1838, the said equity of redemption was sold by the sheriff at public sale, when the lessor of the plaintiff became the purchaser, and on the 7th of April, 1840, the said sheriff executed to the purchaser a deed for the same. The declaration in ejectment was issued to the County Court of Lenoir, at its January Term, 1839, and the demise therein stated was the first day of January, 1839. The defendant has never been out of the possession of the premises since the date of his mortgage to William D. Mosely, and there was no evidence offered by the plaintiff of a notice to the defendant to quit, or demand of possession, before the bringing of this action. The declaration in this case appears from the return of the sheriff, endorsed on the same, to have been served, as follows, “Executed by delivering a copy of this the 31st day of December, 1838.” The defendant had, as it appeared from the record, confessed lease, entry and...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Gregg v. Williamson
...211 N.C. 317, 190 S.E. 479; Stevens v. Turlington, supra; Wittkowski v. Watkins, 84 N.C. 456; Hemphill v. Ross, 66 N.C. 477; Fuller v. Wadsworth, 24 N.C. 263; 37 Am. Jur. 211. But mortgagee's right to possession is only for the better security of the debt owing to him. When he takes possess......
-
Connor v. Prop. Fund 629, LLC (In re Connor)
...Life Ins. Co. v. Moore , 167 Tenn. 620, 72 S.W.2d 1050, 1051 (1934) (citing Underhill on Landlord and Tenant § 167; Fuller v. Wadsworth , 24 N.C. 263, 38 Am. Dec. 692 (1842) ; Ford v. Steele , 54 Vt. 562 (1882) ). Including a provision that merely reiterates the common law is not necessaril......
-
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Moore
... ... "tenant at sufferance" of the mortgagee, according ... to Underhill on Landlord and Tenant § 167; Fuller v ... Wadsworth, 24 N. C. (2 Ired.) 263, 38 Am. Dec. 692; ... Ford v. Steele, 54 Vt. 562. Our cases quite ... generally recognize a similarity ... ...
-
Killebkew v. Hines
...lease, he might altogether defeat the claim of the mortgagee." He cites many authorities in sup-port of what he thus said. Fullerv. Wads-worth, 2 Ired. 263; Whitehurst v. Gaskill, 69 N. 0. 449; Hill v. Nicholson, 92 N. C. 24; Johnson v. Prairie, 94 N. C. 773; Dail v. Freeman, 92 N. C. 351, ......