Hardison v. Everett

• Decision Date: 20 October 1926
• Docket Number: 223.
• Citation: 135 S.E. 288,192 N.C. 371
• Parties: HARDISON et al. v. EVERETT.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

135 S.E. 288

192 N.C. 371

HARDISON et al. v. EVERETT.

No. 223.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

October 20, 1926

Appeal from Superior Court, Onslow County; Bond, Judge.

Action by C. C. Hardison and others against L. W. Everett. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

Estoppel by judgment against plaintiff's grantor, fixing boundary of tract specifically described, does not bar plaintiff's claim of title to other adjacent tract owned by grantor at time.

Part of the map herein referred to, aiding in a clear understanding of the matter in controversy, is here inserted:

(Image Omitted)

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant alleging that he was the owner of a tract of land containing about 300 acres and that the defendant had trespassed thereupon. The defendant answered denying plaintiff's title.

There was evidence tending to show that on the 20th of April, 1922 V. Sidbury sold to the plaintiff 2 acres of land designated in the record as the Craig place. Sidbury purchased these 2 acres from one Justice in 1913, and was therefore the owner of the land in 1915. The 2-acre Craig lot was located at the northeastern corner of tract No. 2 of the Ennett land. At the April term, 1915, V. Sidbury brought a suit against L. W. Everett, the defendant in this case, and others, claiming to be the owner of a tract of land containing about 500 acres. In the complaint filed in said action in 1915 the description of the land referred to J. W. Hardison's corner and L. W. Everett's line. In the suit between Sidbury and Everett in 1915, the plaintiff Sidbury was claiming land north of "West Goose Creek prong," and in the present case, the "Craig place" is north of West Goose Creek prong. At the April term, 1916, in the case of Sidbury v. Everett, the following issue was submitted to the jury:

"Is the true dividing line between the land of the plaintiff Sidbury, claimed under John King 600-acre grant, and the land of the defendant, Everett, the line from the point marked 'Pullen corner' on the map attached, to the point marked 'red oak' at 6?"

"This cause coming on to be heard, it having been agreed and put in the record that the whole controversy hinges on where is the dividing line between the plaintiff V. Sidbury and the defendant owner, and the other defendants claiming certain timber rights on the lands of said Everett, and it having been further agreed by both sides that if the jury find that the true dividing line between the tract of land owned by the plaintiff and the tract of land owned by the defendants according to their respective interests was not the line on the map marked Pullen corner, running to point 6 marked red oak, then the true dividing line between the lands of said parties is the West Goose Creek prong, as shown on said map from letter Y to the letter X, and the jury having answered the issue saying that the line first named is not the true dividing line, it is adjudged, ordered, and decreed that the defendant, L. W. Everett, subject to such rights in the timber as his codefendants may have, is the owner and rightfully in possession of the land in controversy, bounded south by the West Goose Creek prong, running from letter Y to the letter X on map hereto attached and made a part of this judgment.

"It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the plaintiff V. Sidbury is the owner of lot No. 3 in the division of the Thomas Ennett lands, and that its northern boundary is the West Goose Creek prong from Y to X."

D. L. Ward, of New Bern, and Nere E. Day, of Jacksonville, for appellants.

E. W. Summersill, of Jacksonville, and L. R. Varser, of Lumberton, for appellee.

BROGDEN J.

The defendant asserts that, as V. Sidbury was the owner of the "Craig place" when the judgment was rendered in 1916, between Sidbury and Everett, Hardison, being the purchaser of the "Craig place" in controversy from Sidbury, since said judgment, is estopped by the judgment from claiming the land in controversy. The plaintiff asserts that the record in Sidbury v. Everett, and the judgment in that cause, determined the northern boundary of Sidbury as to lot No. 3 only, and did not involve title to lot No. 2, which is now in dispute.

Estoppel by judgment is thus defined by Justice Pearson in Armfield v. Moore, 44 N.C. 157:

"The meaning of which [estoppel] is, that when a fact has been agreed on, or decided in a court of record, neither of the parties shall be allowed to call it in question, and

...