Ingram v. Corbit

• Decision Date: 15 April 1919
• Docket Number: 394.
• Citation: 99 S.E. 18,177 N.C. 318
• Parties: INGRAM v. CORBIT et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

99 S.E. 18

177 N.C. 318

INGRAM v. CORBIT et al.

No. 394.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

April 15, 1919

Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Lane, Judge.

Suit by E. K. Ingram against Bettie Corbit and others. Demurrer to complaint sustained, and action dismissed, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Mere surplusage of parties is not ground for demurrer.

If lease under which lessee claims is valid, lessor's widow who claims possession under an allotment of dower, is, in action of ejectment, a necessary party defendant, and also as guardian of her daughter, the only heir, and a proper party as administratrix of lessor.

In June, 1914, E. T. Corbit, now deceased, executed a lease to plaintiff for one acre of land for 10 years, and agreed to erect a slaughterhouse and dig a well thereon. The plaintiff delivered to Corbit his note in the sum of $500, secured by the chattel mortgage, in payment of the 10-year rental. It is alleged in the complaint, and is admitted by the demurrer that pursuant to the contract Corbit inclosed an acre of land with a wire fence, erected the slaughterhouse thereon, and dug the well; that plaintiff went into possession, and remained in possession during the lifetime of Corbit, who died in November, 1914; that his wife, the defendant herein qualified as his administratrix, and also as guardian for his only heir, her daughter Alberta; that plaintiff paid the annual rental to the widow for the years 1915 and 1916, but she refused to accept the rental for 1917, and, locking up the slaughterhouse, excluded plaintiff therefrom. Prior to locking up the slaughterhouse, she had dower allotted, including therein the leased land. Prior to the death of Corbit the plaintiff had placed valuable improvements on the land. The defendants demurred to the complaint upon the ground that it did not state a cause of action, either against the widow individually, nor as administratrix, nor as guardian, and because there was a misjoinder of causes of action and a misjoinder of parties.

L. B. Williams, of High Point, and Brooks, Sapp & Kelly, of Greensboro, for appellant.

C. C. Barnhart, of High Point, and W. P. Bynum and R. C. Strudwick, both of Greensboro, for appellees.

CLARK C.J.

The contract, executed June 15, 1914, by E. T. Corbit to Eli Ingram, specified that said Corbit--

"has this day leased to the party of the second part about one acre of land for a term of ten years, as a place to butcher, on the following terms and conditions, to wit: The said party of the first part agrees to furnish $400 in cash towards building a slaughterhouse. It is mutually agreed and understood that the said party of the first part is to have all the manure, bones, offal, and refuse from said slaughter-house, and also to have access and the privilege of butchering his own hogs, cattle, etc., and have the privilege of getting water to water his hogs, cattle, and other stock.

"It is further understood and agreed that the party of the second part is to pay the party of the first part the sum of $50 rent for the use of said house on the 15th day of June of each and every year for ten years--that is, $50 a year during the life of said lease.

"The party of the second part is to also give the party of the first part his note for $500, without interest, secured by a chattel mortgage on his fixtures in meat market, for the faithful performance of this contract, and at any time the party of the second part fails or refuses to pay his rent as above stipulated the party of the first part is hereby authorized and empowered to advertise and sell the property embraced in said chattel mortgage to make his money, costs, and expenses of the said sale.

"It is also understood and mutually agreed that the house and all improvements on said land at the expiration of said lease are to remain and be the property of the party of the first part."

The amended complaint avers that the plaintiff, since the date of the contract, has been in possession of said lot, inclosed by a wire fence, erected by said Corbit, describing the said lot, and that soon after June 15, 1914, said Corbit dug the well on said lot, built the slaughterhouse thereon, and put in the fixtures; that the defendant Bettie Corbit, individually and as guardian of her daughter, is in possession of said property, which she took possession of without giving the plaintiff notice of her intention to terminate the lease, and alleges damages. He asks that the allotment of dower be declared null and void, and that he recover possession of said property and damages for the detention of the same. The demurrer is upon the ground that no cause of action is stated against her, either individually or as administratrix, or as guardian of her daughter, and, further, a misjoinder of causes of action on the part of the defendant. It was error to sustain the demurrer as to misjoinder of causes of action or misjoinder of parties.

If the lease is valid, it was necessary in an action of ejectment to make the widow, who claimed possession under an allotment of dower, a party defendant, and also as guardian of her daughter. She was also a proper party as administratrix, to answer the demand for damages. The allotment of dower would be a defense for her to set up, and would not be an estoppel against the plaintiff, who is not a party thereto. Moreover ...