Knight v. Houghtalling

Decision Date28 February 1886
Citation94 N.C. 408
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesR. and T. L. KNIGHT v. E. B. HOUGHTALLING, et als.
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Petition filed in the SUPREME COURT in the above entitled action, by R. W. Winston and T. L. Hargrove, the purchasers at the sale made under the decree of this Court in said action, heard at February Term, 1886, of the Supreme Court.

This was a petition for a WRIT OF ASSISTANCE, filed in the case of Knight v. Houghtalling, which was decided by the Court at the October Term, 1884, and reported in 85 N. C., 17. It was a civil action to foreclose a mortgage. There was a judgment in the case, at October Term, 1884, against the defendants, one of whom was William H. Wood, the defendant in this petition, directing the land conveyed in the mortgage to be sold for the payment of the judgment. The Clerk of this Court was appointed commissioner to effect the sale. He made the sale on the 14th day of September, 1885, when Robert W. Winston and Tazewell L. Hargrove, the petitioners, became the purchasers, and the said commissioner made his report of the sale, and the compliance of the purchasers with the terms of sale, to the October Term, 1885, of this Court, when the said report was confirmed by the Court, and title ordered to be made by the commissioner to the purchasers. In pursuance of said order, a deed for the land was duly executed by the commissioner to the said Winston and Hargrove, which was soon thereafter registered in the Register's office for the county of Granville.

The petitioners allege in their petition, that they had applied to William H. Wood, who was in the actual possession of said land, and had been since before the judgment in the action of Knight v. Houghtalling, to surrender to them the possession of the same, which he positively refused to do, as is shown by the affidavit of Robert Winston, which accompanies the petition. The affidavit states that he met Wood on the 18th of January, 1886, and told him that he and Tazewell Hargrove had purchased the land, and had a deed for the same, which was registered, and they wanted possession. Wood replied in an angry tone, “Well, sir, I am going to hold to that land, and your trouble has just begun, and don't you forget it.”

The petitioners also supported their petition by the affidavit of J. N. Lyon, a deputy sheriff, who served a written notice of the purchase and deed, and a demand by the petitioners, on the said Wood, for the possession of the land on the ... day of January, 1886, when the said Wood said, They may think they have stolen...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Southern State Bank v. Leverette
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 21, 1924
    ... ... equitable habere facias possessionem, for it is issued only ... from courts of chancery (Knight v. Houghtalling, 94 ... N.C. 408), and all the subsequent decisions have treated the ... writ as issuable only from a court of equity (Coor v ... ...
  • Clarke v. Aldrtdge
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 22, 1913
    ...the decree. Wagon Co. v. Byrd, 119 N. C. 464, 26 S. E. 144; Exum v. Baker, 115 N. C. 244, 20 S. E. 448, 44 Am. St. Rep. 449; Knight v. Hough tailing, 94 N. C. 408; 2 Beach, Modern Eq. Practice, § 897; Schenck v. Con-over, 13 N. J. Eq. 220, 78 Am. Dec. 95, and see editorial note to case of C......
  • Clarke v. Aldridge
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 22, 1913
    ... ... Wagon Co. v ... Byrd, 119 N.C. 464, 26 S.E. 144; Exum v. Baker, ... 115 N.C. 244, 20 S.E. 448, 44 Am. St. Rep. 449; Knight v ... Houghtalling, 94 N.C. 408; 2 Beach, Modern Eq. Practice, ... § 897; Schenck v. Conover, 13 N. J. Eq. 220, 78 Am ... Dec. 95, and see ... ...
  • Williams v. Sherman
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • February 28, 1922
    ...634, 10 Ann. Cas. 1039, 103 N.W. 300, 106 N.W. 1016; Fackler v. Worth, 13 N.J. Eq. 395; Blauvelt v. Smith, 22 N.J. Eq. 31; Knight v. Houghtalling, 94 N.C. 408, 411.) When writ of assistance has been improperly granted, the court, on motion, is bound to correct the wrong by restoring the pos......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT