McLaurin v. Williams
| Decision Date | 03 April 1918 |
| Docket Number | 288. |
| Parties | MCLAURIN v. WILLIAMS. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Cumberland County; Bond, Judge.
Action by H. A. McLaurin against T. F. Williams. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. No error.
Where one party to litigations is white and the other is colored it is not error for court to instruct that jury should be fair and just and give fair and impartial hearing regardless of color of litigants.
Bullard & Stringfield, of Fayetteville, for appellant.
Cook & Cook and J. M. Williford, all of Fayetteville, for appellee.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is the owner of the tract of land described, containing 148 acres, and has been in the peaceable, quiet, and adverse possession of said land claiming it as his own for more than 23 years, exercising all the rights of ownership, but that the defendant has trespassed upon said land, interfering with his farming thereon, and has threatened the plaintiff to put him on the county roads, and otherwise sought to intimidate the plaintiff, who is an ignorant colored man, and, being fearful to proceed with the cultivation of said land, he brought this action to restrain the defendant from interfering with the possession of the land, and asked a restraining order. The defendant answered that the plaintiff had rented the land in 1916 from him and was estopped to deny defendant's title. The plaintiff in his reply averred that the defendant bought the land at a sale for taxes due by the plaintiff for the year 1914; that at such sale by the sheriff on May 3, 1915 the defendant bought the land, and in January, 1916, notified the plaintiff that he would ask a deed from the sheriff on May 3, 1916; that the defendant had bought the land at the tax sale for $14.55 taxes, but that the land is worth at least $1,000. The complaint alleged, and the plaintiff testified, that when this notice was given he told the defendant that he would get the money and pay defendant, but that the defendant told him that he need not do that; that he wanted to help him get a paper title for the land and to wait till after May 3, 1916, when he (defendant) would get a sheriff's deed for it; and that thereafter the defendant told the plaintiff that it was necessary for him to sign a lease in order to help him strengthen his chances to get a good title. It is alleged and in evidence that plaintiff relying upon these representations of the defendant, did not get the money to pay the taxes before May 3, 1916, and signed the lease in August of that year, as the defendant had told him it was necessary to do so to perfect his title. There was evidence to the contrary from the defendant, but the jury found in response to the issues that the defendant agreed to get the title from the sheriff for the land in order to make the plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Outen
...but was proper in the circumstances and could not possibly have prejudiced any right of defendant.' In the case of McLaurin v. Williams, 175 N.C. 291, 95 S.E. 559, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that where a party to a litigation is white and the other is colored, it is not error for......