North Carolina Self Help Corporation v. Brinkley
| Decision Date | 24 May 1939 |
| Docket Number | 32. |
| Parties | NORTH CAROLINA SELF HELP CORPORATION et al. v. BRINKLEY et ux. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Civil action to remove cloud upon title to certain land in the town of Manteo, Dare County.
It is admitted that both plaintiffs and defendants claim title under W. T. Brinkley, who died seized of a certain boundary of land fronting on Water Street in the town of Manteo, Dare County, leaving as his only heirs at law four children Camille Brinkley, Susie Drinkwater, W. C. Brinkley and defendant Zeb V. Brinkley.
Prior to August, 1910, in special proceeding instituted in the Superior Court of Dare County by Theodore S. Meekins, who had acquired the undivided interest of Susie Drinkwater in and to the W. T. Brinkley land, against W. C. Brinkley, Zeb V Brinkley and Camille Brinkley, said land was actually divided into four separate parts and allotted as follows: Lot #1 to Theodore S. Meekins, Lot #2 to Camille Brinkley, Lot #3 to W C. Brinkley and Lot #4 to defendant, Zeb V. Brinkley. Beginning with #1 on the north lots adjoin in numerical order.
Upon death of Camille Brinkley in 1915, Susie Drinkwater acquired title to lot #2. On 17 April, 1921, W. C. Brinkley died intestate, seized of lot #3, and leaving as his only heirs at law Susie Drinkwater and defendant Zeb V. Brinkley.
By reason of the foregoing facts, on September 29, 1922, Susie Drinkwater owned all of lot #2 and an undivided half of lot #3, and Zeb V. Brinkley owned an undivided half of lot #3 and all of lot #4. This was all the property Zeb V. Brinkley owned in the town of Manteo, North Carolina, at that time.
(a) On that date defendants executed and delivered to Susie Drinkwater a deed which is duly registered, containing the following description: "The parties of the first part *** convey all of their right, title, interest and estate in and to a certain store lot in the town of Manteo, in the County of Dare, North Carolina, containing one half acre, more or less, the interest hereby conveyed being an undivided one half interest". (b) On October 3, 1922, Susie Drinkwater and husband executed and delivered deed to S. A. Griffin and O. J. Jones, purporting to convey by specific description a boundary of land covering lots 2, 3 and 4. (c) On September 1, 1923, S. A. Griffin and O. J. Jones executed and delivered to Jesse Midgett, Jr., a deed purporting to convey by specific description all of lot #2 and the adjacent, or northern, half of lot #3, including the old W. T. Brinkley store building. (d) On January 1, 1926, O. J. Jones executed a deed to S. A. Griffin purporting to convey one half undivided interest in the remaining or southern half of lot #3 and all of lot #4. (e) On July 15, 1935, S. A. Griffin executed and delivered deed to plaintiff Roy L. Davis, purporting to convey the same property described in the deed to him from O. J. Jones, and (f) by mesne conveyances from Roy L. Davis, his co-plaintiffs claim interests and rights therein. All of these deeds were introduced in evidence over defendants' objection.
1. Plaintiffs allege and contend that by their deed to Susie Drinkwater, on September 29, 1922, defendants conveyed not only an undivided half interest in lot #3 but all of lot #4. Defendants deny that this is the effect of that deed, and contend that the description there is patently ambiguous and void for uncertainty. On the trial below plaintiffs were permitted to offer parol evidence, over objection by defendants, tending to show that the boundary before the partition was known in the community as the Brinkley property, or the Brinkley store lot, and that after the partition lots Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were so known; that there was a store building on the boundary; that after the partition this building was situated partly on lot #2 and partly on lot #3; and that lots 2, 3 and 4 contained one half acre. The witness O. J. Jones, testifying for plaintiff, said: . Evidence for plaintiffs further tends to show that there were then many store lots in the town of Manteo.
Plaintiff was also permitted to offer, over defendants' objection, evidence tending to show that at the time the defendants executed and delivered to Susie Drinkwater the deed of September 29, 1922, she conveyed to defendant Zeb V. Brinkley certain farm property which she received from the W. T. Brinkley estate.
2. Plaintiffs further allege and contend, and offer evidence tending to show, that upon delivery of deed from Susie Drinkwater on October 3, 1922, O. J. Jones and S. A. Griffin went into possession of the property and occupied the store building and continued to so hold same until September 1, 1923, when they sold to Jesse Midgett, Jr., lot #2 and half of lot #3, including the part on which the store building was situated; that while the remaining portion of lot #3 and all of lot #4 were then vacant, with no fence around any of it, they were in possession of same; that within the year after January 1, 1926, the date that O. J. Jones sold his interest in same to S. A. Griffin, Griffin built a garage in the southern corner of lot #4, and that the garage was used by him continuously until other buildings were placed upon the property after the conveyances to plaintiff Roy L. Davis, and that since then he and those claiming under him have occupied those buildings.
On the other hand, defendants deny that O. J. Jones and S. A. Griffin or either of them have been in adverse possession of southern half of lot #3 or of lot #4. They aver and offer evidence tending to show that before erecting the garage S. A. Griffin obtained express permission from the defendant, Zeb V. Brinkley, to place it on the property and to use and occupy it. Defendants also offer testimony tending to show that Griffin otherwise recognized their ownership of lot #4.
3. Plaintiffs further alleged and offered evidence tending to show that O. J. Jones, being interested for himself and his partner, S. A. Griffin, in buying lots 2, 3 and 4 of the W. T. Brinkley property, went to Virginia Beach, Virginia, where defendants then resided, and on Labor Day, 1922, talked with defendant Zeb V. Brinkley about purchasing same; that at that time Brinkley stated that he had sold his interest in the property to his sister, Mrs. Drinkwater, who lived nearby; that thereupon Brinkley went with him to the home of Mrs. Drinkwater, and was present when he, Jones, acting and relying upon the statements of Brinkley, negotiated with her for the purchase of the property, at the price of $2,000; that he did not then pay to Mrs. Drinkwater any part of the purchase price, but did pay a part when the deed was delivered and the balance afterwards.
By reason of this evidence plaintiffs contend that defendants are estopped to assert title to any of the said land.
On the other hand, defendants deny the material parts thereof, and by cross examination of O. J. Jones, witness for plaintiffs, elicited evidence tending to show that in 1922 Jones was a man of business experience having been county commissioner, postmaster and merchant for many years; that during the period between Labor Day and October 3, 1922, the date of deed from Mrs. Drinkwater, his place of business was across the street from the Courthouse; and that he knew records of deeds for Dare County were kept in the Courthouse. Thereupon defendants contend that Jones knew, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, the condition of the title, and that plaintiffs cannot invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Pursuant to these contentions the case was submitted to the jury on these issues:
1. Are the plaintiffs Roy Davis, R. Bruce Etheridge, Guy H. Lennon, R. B. Lennon, and J. B. Peterson, the owners of that portion of the lands described in paragraph 11 of the complaint which embraces a portion of lot #3 of the W. T. Brinkley division?
2. Are the plaintiffs Roy Davis, R. Bruce Etheridge, Guy H. Lennon, R. B. Lennon and J. B. Peterson, the owners of lot #4 of the W. T. Brinkley division?
3. Are the defendants estopped by their conduct from asserting title to lot #4 of the W. T. Brinkley division?
The court peremptorily instructed the jury to answer the first issue "Yes." The jury also answered the other issues "Yes".
From judgment on the verdict for plaintiffs, defendants appeal and assign error.
Worth & Horner, of Elizabeth City, for appellants.
McMullan & McMullan, of Elizabeth City, and Royall, Gosney & Smith and Howard E. Manning, all of Raleigh, for appellees.
We are of opinion that defendants' exceptive assignments with respect to failure of the court to charge in relation to the second and...
To continue reading
Request your trial