Gaither v. Albemarle Hospital
Decision Date | 30 April 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 29,29 |
Citation | 235 N.C. 431,70 S.E.2d 680 |
Parties | GAITHER et al. v. ALBEMARLE HOSPITAL, Inc., et al. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Worth & Horner, Elizabeth City, for plaintiffs appellees.
McMullan & Aydlett, and Wilson & Wilson, all of Elizabeth City, for defendants appellants.
Appellants, the defendants, raise, and debate in their brief filed here on this appeal, four questions as arising upon assignments of error on which they rely. We hold, however, that on the record and case on appeal now considered, prejudicial error is not made to appear.
The first question presented is this: 'Should the court have disposed of defendants' plea of adverse possession prior to entering an order of compulsory reference?' As to this, if it be conceded that the plea as made be sufficient to set up a good plea in bar to plaintiffs' cause of action, 'the rule of practice in an orderly course of procedure' would be to have such defense disposed of before ordering a compulsory reference. Com'rs of Wake v. City of Raleigh, 88 N.C. 120, and numerous other cases.
Such plea raises an issue of fact which the pleaders are entitled to have tried by a jury. This right may be waived. In a consent reference this right is waived, and this issue, as well as all others raised by the pleadings, may be decided by the referee. On the other hand, in a compulsory reference the right to have this issue tried by a jury is not waived, and this issue should be settled by a jury before an order of reference is made. See McIntosh N.C.P. & P., Sec. 523.
But if when a good plea in bar is pleaded the court should order a reference, a party may object, and 'appeal at once, if he be so minded, or he may rely upon his objection, by reserving his exception, and appeal from the final judgment', Walker, J., in Pritchett v. Greensboro Supply Co., 153 N.C. 344, 69 S.E. 249; Baker v. J. J. Edwards & Son, 176 N.C. 229, 97 S.E. 16, and other cases.
Indeed, if the objectors elect to take the latter course, their right to have the issue based on the plea in bar tried by a jury, may be waived. Booker v. Town of Highlands, 198 N.C. 282, 151 S.E. 635; Brown v. E. H. Clement Co., 217 N.C. 47, 6 S.E.2d 842, and cases cited.
In Booker v. Town of Highlands, supra, [198 N.C. 282, 151 S.E. 637] Stacy, C. J., states clearly and concisely the procedure which must be pursued in a compulsory reference in order to preserve the right to a trial by jury, (the first two requirements being pertinent to case in hand), as follows:
* * *'
And 'a failure to observe any one of these requirements may constitute a waiver of the party's right to have the controverted matters submitted to a jury and authorize the judge to pass upon the exceptions without the aid of a jury.' McIntosh Sec. 525.
Applying this procedure to the case in hand, it appears that while defendants excepted to the order of reference, and filed exception to certain adverse findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the referee, yet they did not tender any issues, nor did they demand a jury trial on any issue. Hence, the right to have the issue raised by their plea in bar tried by a jury is waived. Indeed they offered no evidence in support of such issue. And the rulings of the judge, made upon exceptions to the report of referee, while not expressly
so stated, are tantamount to holding against defendants on their plea in bar.
The second question is stated by appellants in these words: 'Does the recordation of the Riverside Land Company plat, showing a strip of land to the east of Riverside Avenue as undivided land, constitute a dedication of the strip for such a purpose as to give the plaintiffs a special property right therein sufficient to support their original complaint?'
In this connection, it is appropriate to note that, in this State, the findings of fact made by referee, when there is evidence tending to support them, if affirmed by the judge, are conclusive on appeal. See Frey v. Middle Creek Lumber Co., 144 N.C. 759, 57 S.E. 464; Henderson v. McLain, 146 N.C. 329, 59 S.E. 873; Lexington Mirror Co. v. Philadelphia Casualty Co., 153 N.C. 373, 69 S.E. 261.
And the question here posed by appellants is predicated upon assignments of error based upon exceptions to conclusions of law approved by the judge and to conclusions of law made by the judge. Hence the pivotal question is whether the findings of fact support these conclusions of law. The Court is of opinion, and holds that they do support such conclusions of law.
It is a settled principle in this State that when the owner of land, located within or without a city or town, has it subdivided and platted into lots, streets, alleys, and parks, and sells and conveys the lots or any of them with reference to the plat, nothing else appearing, he thereby dedicates the streets, alleys, and parks, and all of them, to the use of the purchasers, and those claiming under them, and of the public. See Home Real Estate Loan & Ins. Co. v. Town of Carolina Beach, 216 N.C. 778, 7 S.E.2d 13, where pertinent decisions of this Court are assembled. Among the cases cited are: Conrad v. West End Hotel & Land Co., 126 N.C. 776, 36 S.E. 282; Collins v. Asheville Land Co., 128 N.C. 563, 39 S.E. 21; Hughes v. Clark, 134 N.C. 457, 46 S.E. 956, 47 S.E. 462; Green v. Miller, 161 N.C. 24, 76 S.E. 505, 44 L.R.A., N.S., 231; Sexton v. Elizabeth City, 169 NC. 385, 86 S.E. 344; Wittson v. Dowling, 179 N.C. 542, 103 S.E. 18. See also Foster v. Atwater, 226 N.C. 472, 38 S.E.2d 316.
In the Collins case, supra, [128 N.C. 563, 39 S.E. 22] it is held 'that a map or plat, referred to in a deed, becomes a part of the deed as if it were written therein, and that, therefore, the plan indicated on the plat is to be regarded as a unity, and the purchaser of a lot acquires a right to have all and each of the ways and streets on the plat or map kept open.' To support this view the Court quotes with approval the following from Elliott on Roads, Sec. 120:
The reason for the rule, as stated in Green v. Miller, supra, [161 N.C. 24, 76 S.E. 507] is that 'the grantor, by making such a conveyance of his property, induces the purchasers to believe that the streets and alleys, squares, courts, and parks will be kept open for their use and benefit; and having acted upon the faith of his implied representations, based upon his conduct in platting the land and selling accordingly, he is equitably estopped, as well in reference to the public as to his grantees, from denying the existence of the easement thus created.'
In this connection attention is directed to Annotation appearing in 7 A.L.R.2d 607, on the subject 'Conveyance of lot by reference to map or plat as giving purchaser rights in indicated streets, alleys, and areas not abutting his lot.' The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kadlec v. Dorsey
...v. Town of Normal, 359 Ill. 306, 310, 194 N.E. 576 (1934); Skates v. Bryant, 863 So.2d 907, ¶ 7 (Miss.2003); Gaither v. Albemarle Hosp., 235 N.C. 431, 70 S.E.2d 680, 690 (1952); Garvey v. Harbison-Walker Refractories Co., 213 Pa. 177, 62 A. 778, 778-79 (1906); De Byle v. Roberts, 273 Wis. 6......
-
Steadman v. Town of Pinetops, 234
...not actually opened at the time of the sale they must be at all times free to be opened as occasion may require. ' Gaither v. Albemarle Hospital, 235 N.C. 431, 70 S.E.2d 680; Rowe v. City of Durham, 235 N.C. 158, 69 S.E.2d 171; Lee v. Walker, 234 N.C. 687, 68 S.E.2d 664; Broocks v. Muirhead......
-
Murphy v. Smith
...Mirror Co. v. Philadelphia Casualty Co., 153 N.C. 373, 69 S.E. 261; McGeorge v. Nicola, 173 N.C. 707, 91 S.E. 708; Gaither v. Albemarle Hospital, N.C., 70 S.E.2d 680. Applying this rule to this finding of fact, the testimony of petitioner Viney Langston tends to support the finding. She tes......
-
Pritchard v. Scott, 28
...Bone's judgment and appeal therefrom forthwith. Pritchett v. Greensboro Supply Co., 153 N.C. 344, 69 S.E. 249; Gaither v. Albemarle Hospital, 235 N.C. 431, 442, 70 S.E.2d 680. 'It is a well-settled rule that where, during the unity of title, an apparently permanent and obvious servitude is ......
-
"One man's ceilin' is another man's floor": property rights as the double-edged sword.
...and the Public Trust Doctrine: Some Realism About the Takings Issue, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 423, 457 (1995). (408) Gaither v. Abermarle Hosp., 70 S.E.2d 680, 692 (N.C. 1952) (stating that obstructions need not interfere with navigation, only make it less convenient to constitute a (409) William ......