Jones v. Hoggard

• Decision Date: 24 February 1891
• Citation: 12 S.E. 906,108 N.C. 178
• Parties: JONES et al. v. HOGGARD et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

12 S.E. 906

108 N.C. 178

JONES et al. v. HOGGARD et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

February 24, 1891

Action to recover land, tried at May term, 1890, of Bertie superior court, before ARMFIELD, J. Facts agreed upon were as follows (1) Some years prior to the war, Stephen Ruffin and Sylvia Ruffin, a slave man and woman, cohabited together as man and wife, and the plaintiffs, Martha and Kate Jones, Edmund and Stephen Pugh, and Lucy Watson, and the defendant Margaret Sanderlin, were born during the cohabitation; and after the birth of the youngest of these children the cohabitation ceased by the voluntary moving away of one of the parties and was never resumed. (2) After said separation, and prior to the war, the said Sylvia contracted the relation of man and wife with one Alonzo Hoggard, a slave man, and this relation continued until the death of Alonzo Hoggard, Sr., in 1873. Of this cohabitation, and before 1866, two children were born,--Samuel S. Hoggard, one of the defendants, and Alonzo Hoggard, Jr., who died before the commencement of this action. (3) Immediately after the passage of the act of March 10, 1866, c. 40, "Alonzo Hoggard, Sr., and Sylvia, in strict compliance with the act, and being then persons within its meaning, made all of the acknowledgments required by the act, and went before the officer therein designated, and acknowledged the fact of this cohabitation and the time of its commencement, which was recorded in a book kept for that purpose." (4) Alonzo, Sr., died in 1873, seised and possessed of the property mentioned, and leaving Samuel S Hoggard and Alonzo, Jr., his only heirs at law. (5) Sylvia Hoggard died in 1876, seised and possessed of the Bryan warehouse, and leaving, surviving her, children born of Stephen Ruffin, and Samuel S. Hoggard and Alonzo, Jr children of Alonzo, Sr. (6) Alonzo Hoggard, Jr., died unmarried, without issue and intestate. No date is given. (7) Samuel S. Hoggard has been for 10 years in the sole and exclusive possession of both lots, and refuses to allow the plaintiffs to occupy or enjoy any part of the same. Upon these facts the plaintiffs ask to be let into possession as cotenants in common with the defendants, which defendant Samuel S. Hoggard resists, claiming sole seisin in himself of said lots. The plaintiffs appealed from the judgment rendered against them.

W. D. Pruden and R. B. Peebles, for appellants.

Winston & Williams, for appellees.

CL...