Guy v. First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank of Columbia
| Decision Date | 01 November 1933 |
| Docket Number | 202. |
| Citation | 171 S.E. 341,205 N.C. 357 |
| Parties | GUY v. FIRST CAROLINAS JOINT STOCK LAND BANK OF COLUMBIA et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Avery County; Hill, Special Judge.
Action by E. C. Guy against the First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank of Columbia and another. From a judgment of nonsuit plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Caveat emptor doctrine applies in sale of realty, in absence of fraud, mistake, or overreaching.
Civil action to recover damages for alleged breach of covenant of seizin.
On August 28, 1928, the plaintiff acquired by deed from the First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank of Columbia a tract of land in Avery county, N. C., of approximately 546 acres valuable chiefly for grazing and mining purposes, said deed containing the following covenants: "And the said The First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank of Columbia does hereby bind itself and its successors to warrant and forever defend all and singular the said premises unto the said E. C. Guy, his heirs and assigns against itself and its successors and all persons whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof."
It is alleged that the grantor in said deed at the time of its execution did not own the mineral interests in said lands, the same having been expressly reserved by predecessors in title, and, to this extent, there is a failure in plaintiff's title, his deed purporting to convey the lands in fee.
From a judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of plaintiff's evidence, he appeals, assigning errors.
Charles Hughes, of Newland, and Burke & Burke, of Taylorsville, for appellant.
Willis Smith and John H. Anderson, Jr., both of Raleigh, for appellees.
The plaintiff first sued for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, but, as he was not able, or failed, to allege, eviction under paramount title, ouster, or adverse claim, his complaint was held demurrable. Guy v. Bank, 202 N.C. 803, 164 S.E. 323.
The present action is for alleged breach of covenant of seizin but, as the deed under which plaintiff acquired title contains no covenant of seizin (Cover v. McAden, 183 N.C. 641, 112 S.E. 817, Price v. Deal, 90 N.C. 290), the judgment of nonsuit was properly entered. It is the rule with us that there are no implied covenants with respect to title, quantity, or incumbrance, in the sale of real estate. Peacock v. Barnes, 139 N.C. 196, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial