Ownbey v. Parkway Properties
Citation | 21 S.E.2d 900,222 N.C. 54 |
Decision Date | 30 September 1942 |
Docket Number | 102. |
Parties | OWNBEY v. PARKWAY PROPERTIES, Inc. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Civil action in ejectment here on demurrer at the Spring Term 1942. Ownbey v. Parkway Properties, Inc., 221 N.C 27, 18 S.E.2d 710.
The facts are fully set out in the case agreed as follows:
When the cause came on to be heard in the court below the Judge presiding, "being of the opinion that the statute of limitations relied upon in this cause by the plaintiff, there having been no possession of the land by the plaintiff, are inapplicable, and that the title of the defendant, as set forth in said agreed statement, is good", entered judgment that plaintiff take nothing by his action. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.
Charles Fortune, of Asheville, for appellant.
Guy Weaver, of Asheville, for appellee.
If the actual possession of the mortgagor is a prerequisite to the bar of the statute of limitations against the foreclosure of mortgages and trust deeds the judgment below must be affirmed and if not Spain v. Hines, 214 N.C. 432, 200 S.E. 25, is controlling.
C.S. § 2589 provides only that the power of sale in a mortgage or trust deed is barred when an action to foreclose would be barred. Hence, we must read into this section the provisions of C.S. § 437(3), relating to the bar of actions to foreclose. It is thus made to appear that a power of sale contained in a mortgage becomes inoperative and unenforceable when not exercised within ten years after the forfeiture of the mortgage, or after the power of sale became absolute, or within ten years after the last payment on the same, "where the mortgagor or grantor has been in possession of the property."
The application of this statute, as an affirmative bar, is dependent upon two conditions precedent; (1) lapse of time; and (2) possession by the mortgagor. No bar is provided except upon these conditions which must be coexistent. This brings us to the crucial question: Must the possession of the mortgagor be actual?
Plaintiff argues that constructive possession follows the legal title; that seizin is presumed to rest in the owner of the legal title and that the owner of the legal title is, in law, in possession unless the contrary affirmatively appears.
Conceding this argument to be bottomed upon sound principles of law, it does not aid the plaintiff. A mortgage or trust deed conveys the legal title and the mortgagee or trustee is the owner thereof. Credle v. Ayers, 126 N.C. 11, 35 S.E. 128, 48 L.R.A. 751; Wittkowski v. Watkins, 84 N.C. 456, 457; Woodlief v. Wester, 136 N.C. 162, 48 S.E. 578. Seizin in law is the right of the owner to the possession and enjoyment of a freehold estate and possession is presumed unless the contrary is shown. Dobbs v. Gullidge, 20 N.C. 197; London v. Bear, 84 N.C. 266; Deming v. Gainey, 95 N.C. 528; Williams v. Wallace, 78 N.C. 354. If neither party was in actual possession the constructive possession would be in the mortgagee. C.S. § 432. Weathersbee v. Goodwin, 175 N.C. 234, 95 S.E. 491; Stevens v. Turlington, 186 N.C. 191, 119 S.E. 210 32 A.L.R. 870; Crews v. Crews, 192 N.C. 679, 135 S.E. 784. This principle, in itself, answers plaintiff's contention.
"The law bars the right of entry and of action [or foreclosure under power] of him only who can, but does not, either enter or sue". Woodlief v. Wester, supra [136 N.C. 162, 48 S.E. 579]; 2 Jones Mort. (6d), § 1210; Bruner v. Threadgill, 88 N.C. 361; Lee v. McKoy, 118 N.C. 518, 24 S.E. 210. The statute operates in favor of the mortgagor who is in actual possession. The presumption that the conditions of the mortgage have been fulfilled arises (barring foreclosure action and rendering the mortgage inoperative),...
To continue reading
Request your trial