Krites Et Ux v. Plott Et Ux, 241.
Decision Date | 17 March 1943 |
Docket Number | No. 241.,241. |
Citation | 222 N.C. 679,24 S.E.2d 531 |
Parties | KRITES et ux. v. PLOTT et ux. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Yadkin County; Felix E. Alley, Judge.
Action in ejectment by E. L. Krites and wife against Roy Plott and wife. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
The plaintiffs sued the defendants in ejectment for the recovery of the tract of land described in the complaint. The defendants answered the complaint, denying plaintiffs' title and claiming the land by adverse possession under colorable title for seven years next preceding the institution of the action. C.S. § 428. The plaintiffs replied, setting up the deed under which they allege the defendants claim title, alleging that it conveys no title, but constitutes a cloud upon plaintiffs' title, which they ask to have removed.
By consent of parties, the cause was heard before Judge Felix E. Alley at the November Term, 1942, of Yadkin Superior Court, without the intervention of a jury. The parties entered into a stipulation, whereby it was agreed that the deed referred to in the pleading was that same deed executed by U. J. Thompson to Cora Thompson July 21, 1932, and recorded in Book 37, page 20, in the office of the Register of Deeds for Yadkin County, reading as follows:
It was further stipulated that U. J. Thompson died August 7, 1932, Cora Thompson, his wife, surviving him. Cora Thompson died August 24, 1933. She left a son by a former marriage, E. L. Krites, the plaintiff in this action, who is married to Lillian Krites, co-plaintiff, and is the only son and heir at law of Cora Thompson. Roy Plott is not related by blood or marriage to U. J. Thompson, but was reared by the said Thompson, having lived with him until he reached a majority.
It was agreed that both plaintiffs and defendants are claiming under the deed above set out; that defendants are in possession of the property described in the pleadings and have been in possession since the death of Cora Thompson.
Upon the call of the case for trial, plaintiffs and defendants, in open court, waived a jury trial and agreed that the only question involved was a question of law for the court in the interpretation of the aforesaid deed.
Thereupon, Judge Alley, finding the facts, signed judgment for the defendants, and the plaintiffs appealed.
S. Carter Williams, of Yadkinville, and Whitman & Motsinger, of Winston-Salem, for plaintiffs, appellants.
A. T. Grant, of Mocksville, and Hall & Zachary, of Yadkinville, for defendants, appellees.
We agree with the construction placed upon the deed by the trial judge.
In the construction of deeds, the Court has endeavored to follow and apply the principles adopted and promulgated in Triplett v. Williams, 149 N.C. 394, 63 S.E.
79, 24 L.R.A., N.S., 514, rather comprehensively expressed in the rule that such an instrument must be construed from "its four corners" in order that its true intent may be given effect. Seawell v. Hall, 185 N.C.
80, 82, 116 S.E. 189. Triplett v. Williams, supra, cites with approval 1 Jones, Real Property, Section 568: "The inclination of many courts at the present day is to regard the whole instrument without refer-ence to formal divisions."
paragraphs inserted immediately following the description and before the habendum. Nor is this conclusion overborne by the technical words of inheritance found in the formal parts of the deed, the use of which evidently resulted from the adaptation of a printed form to the purposes of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reed v. Elmore
...favorably to the grantee; Sheets v. Walsh, 217 N.C. 32, 38, 6 S.E.2d 817; Brown v. Brown, 168 N.C. 4, 10, 84 S.E. 25; Krites v. Plott, 222 N.C. 679, 681, 24 S.E.2d 531.' Seawell, J., in McKay v. Cameron, 231 N.C. 658, 58 S.E.2d 638, 639. Restrictive servitudes in derogation of the free and ......
-
Jamerson v. Logan
...not in focus. Every expression to be correctly understood, ought to be considered with a view to the circumstances of its use. Krites v. Plott, 222 N.C. 679, loc. cit. 683, S.E.2d 531; U. S. v. Burr, 4 Cranch. 470 Append. The plaintiff's dernier position is not sustained. The complaint is b......
-
Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Whitfield
...McCallum v. McCallum, 167 N.C. 310, 83 S.E. 250. A writing is not doubtful if it has the same meaning to everyone. Krites v. Plott, 222 N.C. 679, 24 S.E.2d 531. Construction belongs to the field of ambiguity, or where different impressions are reasonably made on different minds. Walton v. M......
-
Lofton v. Barber
...used in the Litchfield deed is so considered it readily appears that Jefferson v. Jefferson, 219 N.C. 333, 13 S.E.2d 745, and Krites v. Plott, supra, distinguishable. In both the Jefferson and the Krites cases there was language expressly limiting the estate of the first taker and of grant ......