Keener v. Goodson
| Decision Date | 31 October 1883 |
| Citation | 89 N.C. 273 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | L. W. KEENER v. ALEXANDER GOODSON. |
EJECTMENT tried at Spring Term, 1883, of LINCOLN Superior Court, before Shipp, J.
The plaintiff put in evidence, under objection, the record of an action in the superior court of Lincoln county in which S. W. Keener, Daniel Goodson, and S. V. Goodson, administrator, were plaintiffs against Alexander Goodson, which showed that at the appearance term of said action the following order was made:
On the 17th of September, 1869, being the fall term of said court, the arbitrators made an award as follows:
“We proceeded to investigate this case on the 15th of September, 1869, and after hearing all the testimony produced and examining all the books and papers in the investigation, we beg to report that in our judgment the defendant is due the plaintiffs five hundred and eighty dollars and seventy-five cents, all of which is respectfully submitted.” “Judgment according to award.”
On the judgment docket there was the following entry: “S. W. Keener, Daniel Goodson and S. V. Goodson v. Alexander Goodson, October 25, 1869; judgment for principal and interest, $580.75; costs, $80.45=$660.20.”
The plaintiff gave in evidence an execution issued upon this docketed judgment, a sale thereunder on the 25th of April, 1870, and a sheriff's deed to him dated 16th of May, 1870, for the land in controversy.
The defendant offered in evidence a deed for the land in dispute from the plaintiff Keener to Joseph F. Johnson, dated 21st of July, 1875; and also a transcript of the record of an action in the circuit court of the United States at Greensboro--Joseph F. Johnson v. Alexander Goodson--commenced on the 9th of September for same land, and continued until April term, 1877, of said court, when the plaintiff was called and nonsuited. He also gave in evidence the proceedings of the assignment of his homestead, dated the 29th of October, 1869, which embraced the entire tract of land in controversy, and was valued at nine hundred and sixty dollars.
The defendant testified that he had been in possession of the land for twenty-five years, by inheritance from his father, and in the actual continuous possession thereof, adversely to the plaintiff and all others, under the assignment of his homestead from the date thereof until the commencement of this action.
The plaintiff then offered in evidence a deed from Joseph F. Johnson, dated the 7th of October, 1879, reconveying to him the land in controversy.
It was agreed that the alleged judgment under which the land was sold and purchased originally by the plaintiff was founded upon certain contracts for building and operating a forge, entered into and to continue from 1862 to 1866, between the plaintiff and others and the defendant, as set forth in the complaint in that action.
The defendant contended:
1. That there was no proceeding and judgment to warrant the sale of the land.
2. That the possession of the land under the homestead was adverse under color of title, and after seven years barred the plaintiff's action.
3. That the action, having commenced more than one year after nonsuit, could not be sustained.
4. That the defendant was entitled to homestead under the pleadings in the action in which judgment and sale of land were had.
There was a verdict for the plaintiff and judgment accordingly, from which the defendant appealed.
Messrs. Hoke & Hoke and B. C. Cobb, for plaintiff .
Mr. W. P. Bynum, for defendant .
The first contention of the defendant was, that the record of the judgment produced in evidence did not show a valid judgment, and that the sale thereunder was void, and the plaintiff acquired no title to the land by the sheriff's deed. The counsel insisted that the judgment upon the award was interlocutory, and that the award itself was defective, because the arbitrators did not find the facts. The counsel argued these points as if the order of reference was under The Code of Civil Procedure; if it had been so, there would have been a good deal of force in his position; but he seems to have entirely overlooked the distinction between a reference under The Code and a reference to arbitrators, and their award to be a rule of court. The provisions of The Code of Civil Procedure have not repealed the common law practice of reference to arbitrators. That practice is still extant, notwithstanding The Code. Crisp v. Love, 65 N. C., 126; Gudger v. Baird, 66 N. C., 438; Hilliard v. Rowland, 68 N. C., 506.
Arbitrators are not bound to find the facts. The effect of a reference to arbitrators is very different from that of a reference under The Code. Arbitrators may choose an umpire; they are not bound to find the facts separately from their conclusions of law; they are not bound to decide according to law, and their award may be general; thus, “that plaintiff recover $____ and costs.” Lusk v. Clayton, 70 N. C., 184; Pickens v. Miller, 83 N. C., 543. And where the award is made and no exceptions taken, or, if taken, not sustained, the practice has uniformly been for the court to render judgment according to the award.
In England, where the submission of a cause to arbitrators was made a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joyner v. Sugg
... ... McNeill, 82 N.C. 221; Adrian v ... Shaw, 82 N.C. 474; Wyche v. Wyche, 85 N.C. 96; ... Grant v. Edwards, 86 N.C. 513; Keener v ... Goodson, 89 N.C. 273; Lowdermilk v. Corpening, ... 92 N.C. 333; Rogers v. Kimsey, 101 N.C. 559, 8 S.E ... 159; Jones v. Britton, ... ...
-
Harris v. Bennett
... ... does not affect the validity of the proceedings. We held in ... Rollins v. Henry, 78 N.C. 342, and Keener v ... Goodson, 89 N.C. 273, that the provision requiring the ... signature of the judge to a judgment was merely directory, ... and the failure ... ...
-
Grimes v. Andrews
...where the statute of limitations would otherwise bar by the lapse of the period prescribed for bringing the suit. It was held in Keener v. Goodson, 89 N.C. 273, that 370 was intended to enlarge the period of limitation, and not to abridge it. But the conclusive answer to this contention is ......
-
In re Reynolds' Estate
... ... determine a controversy as to a particular matter are not ... required to decide according to law. Keener v ... Goodson, 89 N.C. 273; Henry v. Hilliard, 120 ... N.C. 479, 27 S.E. 130; Clark Millinery Co. v. National ... Union Fire Ins. Co., 160 N.C ... ...