Graham v. Spaulding
| Decision Date | 31 January 1946 |
| Docket Number | 595 |
| Parties | GRAHAM v. SPAULDING. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
The plaintiff alleges he is the owner and in possession of a 13-acre tract of land in Columbus County, described by metes and bounds in the complaint; that the defendant has trespassed thereon, after being forbidden, and that plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief and damages for the trespass already committed.
Plaintiff further alleges that he obtained a deed to the locus in quo October 11, 1917, from Mary F. Jacobs, which deed was not recorded until June 20, 1944; that he purchased the property in good faith and entered into possession immediately and claims title thereto by adverse possession for twenty years.
The defendant admits he cut and removed timber from the land described in the complaint, in July, 1944, but alleges he is the owner of the property, having obtained a quit-claim deed therefor, June 17, 1944, from Eliza Pigford, the daughter and only child of Mary F. Jacobs, and her husband, W. Pigford which deed recites a cash consideration of $30 and was recorded prior to plaintiff's deed.
Issues of ownership, trespass and damages were submitted to the jury and answered in favor of the plaintiff.
From judgment thereon, the defendant appealed, assigning error.
Powell & Lewis and R. H. Burns, all of Whiteville, for plaintiff.
E. M Toon, of Whiteville, and Varser, McIntyre & Henry, of Lumberton, for defendant.
The appellant assigns as error the failure of the court below to sustain his motion for judgment as of nonsuit, and for a directed verdict in favor of defendant. This assignment of error cannot be sustained.
It is in evidence that the plaintiff has cultivated part of the land in controversy, and cut logs, piling poles and crossties off the premises from time to time, over a period of 27 years prior to the institution of this action. Substantially all of the land is in timber. Small patches have been cleared by the plaintiff and used during the last 10 or 12 years for tobacco beds. The plaintiff has listed the property for taxes for 27 years.
We think there is sufficient evidence of adverse possession to be submitted to the jury under the decisions of this court in Ward v. Smith, 223 N.C. 141, 25 S.E.2d 463; Berry v. Coppersmith, 212 N.C. 50, 193 S.E. 3; Locklear v. Savage, 159 N.C. 236, 74 S.E. 347; Coxe v. Carpenter, 157 N.C. 557, 73 S.E. 113; and Berry v. McPherson, 153 N.C. 4, 68 S.E. 892.
When the evidence is considered, as it must be, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, it tends to show use and occupation by the plaintiff for the required statutory period, and that during said period the plaintiff has from time to time, continuously subjected the disputed land to the only use of which it was susceptible.
The appellant seriously contends and assigns as error the admission in evidence of plaintiff's deed from Mary F. Jacobs, notwithstanding the fact that the court at the time the deed was offered and admitted, stated that it was admitted conditionally and later excluded it and instructed the jury not to consider the deed or the evidence with respect to it. This assignment of error cannot be sustained. If the deed had been improperly admitted the error was corrected. Moreover, the appellant did not except to the introduction of the deed, but only to the testimony with respect to it after it had been introduced without objection. As a matter of fact, we think the deed was competent to show plaintiff's claim of title. Since another deed to the identical property which plaintiff claims had been filed of record, prior to the filing of his deed, the plaintiff had a right to offer his deed, not as evidence of adverse possession, but as a relevant fact in connection with other circumstances tending to show claim of title; a claim of title, however, which under the circumstances was not a good and...
To continue reading
Request your trial