Peel v. Moore
| Decision Date | 26 September 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 38,38 |
| Citation | 94 S.E.2d 491,244 N.C. 512 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | M. L. PEEL v. Maurice S. MOORE. |
Peel & Peel, Williamston, for defendantappellant.
Clarence W. Griffin, Williamston, for plaintiff-appellee.
The sufficiency of a deed to convey title can be adjudicated by the submission of a controversy without action under G.S. § 1-250. Griffin v. Springer, 244 N.C. 95, 92 S.E.2d 682.
This Court said in Consolidated Realty Corp. v. Koon, 216 N.C. 295, 4 S.E.2d 850, 851:
Alton Stallings never married, and at his death his nearest collateral relatives capable of inheriting were first cousins of his mother's blood and first cousins of his father's blood. Of all these first cousins only two are parties to this proceeding: plaintiff, a first cousin of the father's blood, and defendant, a first cousin of the mother's blood. Plaintiff and defendant have agreed that plaintiff is a first cousin of the father's blood and that, if plaintiff inherited from Alton Stallings any interest in the Ball Gray Farm, it is a 1/32 undivided interest. All the other first cousins of Alton Stallings at his death, who are certainly interested in the controversy, have made no such agreement; they have not agreed that plaintiff is a first cousin of Alton Stallings; and they have not agreed that, if he is a first cousin and if he has inherited anything, it amounts to a 1/32 undivided interest. A judgment in this proceeding to which these other first cousins are strangers with no opportunity to be heard is not binding upon them. Thomas v. Reavis, 196 N.C. 254, 156 S.E. 226.
In the following cases of controversies without action involving title to land, when it appeared to us there could not be a complete and final determination of the rights of the parties interested in the absence of some of the interested parties, we have set aside the judgments rendered and remanded the cases, or remanded the cases, so that the cases can come before the court properly constituted in respect to parties and to the judgment demanded. McKethan v. Ray, 71 N.C. 165; Campbell v. Cronly, 148 N.C. 136, 61 S.E. 1134; Id., 150 N.C. 457, 64 S.E. 213; Brinson v. McCotter, 181 N.C. 482, 106 S.E. 215; Wagoner v. Saintsing, 184 N.C. 362, 114 S.E. 313; Thomas v. Reavis, supra; Consolidated Realty Corp. v. Koon, supra. See also Waters v. Boyd, 179 N.C. 180, 102 S.E. 196.
It is to be noted that the legal title to the three-fifths undivided interest in the Ball Gray Farm was taken in the name of M. S. Moore, guardian of Alton Stallings, when the Fleming deed of trust was foreclosed.
All the first cousins...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Booker v. Everhart
...defect should be corrected by ex mero motu ruling of the court. Underwood v. Stafford, 270 N.C. 700, 155 S.E.2d 211 (1967); Peel v. Moore, 244 N.C. 512, 94 S.E.2d 491. Absence of necessary parties does not merit a nonsuit. Instead, the court should order a continuance so as to provide a rea......
-
Brown v. Cowper
...& Peel, Williamston, for defendants, appellants. PARKER, Justice. At the Fall Term 1956 there was before us the case of Peel v. Moore, 244 N.C. 512, 94 S.E.2d 491, which was a controversy without action to determine the sufficiency of a deed to convey title, submitted to the Court under G.S......
-
Underwood v. Stafford, 447
...the absence of a proper motion by a competent person, the defect should be corrected by Ex mero motu ruling of the Court. Peel v. Moore, 244 N.C. 512, 94 S.E.2d 491; Edmondson v. Henderson, supra (246 n.C. 634, 99 S.E.2d 869).' Town of Morganton v. Hutton & Bourbonnais Co., 247 N.C. 666, 10......
-
Edmondson v. Henderson
...direction that T. O. Manning be brought in as a party. This accords with the procedure followed in our recent decision in Peel v. Moore, 244 N.C. 512, 94 S.E.2d 491, where, as here, the defect of parties was not formally raised in the court below. See also Wagoner v. Saintsing, 184 N.C. 362......