Pritchard v. Williams

• Decision Date: 25 September 1918
• Docket Number: 24.
• Parties: PRITCHARD ET AL. v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

96 S.E. 733

176 N.C. 108

PRITCHARD ET AL. v. WILLIAMS.

No. 24.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

September 25, 1918

Appeal from Superior Court, Camden County; Bond, Judge.

Action by J. A. Pritchard and others against D. E. Williams, wherein defendant petitioned for betterments. From judgment dismissing the petition, defendant appeals. Set aside, and cause remanded with instruction to submit proper issues to jury.

Issues arising on petition for betterments are: First, did petitioner make permanent improvements relying on the title believed to be good; second, did he have reasonable grounds so to believe; third, value of improvements; and, fourth with what sum as rent shall he be charged?--

Aydlett Simpson & Sawyer, of Elizabeth City, R. C. Dozier, of South Mills, and Ehringhaus & Small, of Elizabeth City, for appellant.

D. H Tillitt, of Camden, and Meekins & McMullan, of Elizabeth City, for appellees.

BROWN J.

This cause was before us at last term, 175 N.C. 320, 95 S.E. 570 where the facts are fully stated in the opinion by Mr. Justice Allen. When tried upon the issues raised by the complaint and answer, these facts were found:

(1) Did Joseph G. Hughes hold the property sued for in trust to convey the same as alleged in the complaint? Yes.

(2) Did the defendant, or any of those under whom he claims, purchase the 160-acre tract for value and without notice of said trust? No.

(3) Did the defendant, or any of those under whom he claims, purchase the 80-acre tract for value and without notice of said trust? Yes.

The plaintiffs contend, and the court adjudged, that the findings of the jury bar the right of defendant to betterments.

The claim for betterments in this case is statutory, and the petition conforms literally to the statute. The petitioner avers:

"That while holding the said premises under the color of title above referred to, which was verily believed by this defendant to be good, this defendant made extensive and permanent improvements upon the premises described in said deeds to the value of $9,250, expending a large sum of money and labor, which improvements greatly enhanced and increased the value of said premises to the extent of dollars and cents above named."

The issues that should be submitted to a jury under the betterment statute, Rev. 1905, § 652, are much broader and more comprehensive than those raised by the pleadings and determined by the jury in this case. In order to convert the defendant into a trustee, it was sufficient to fix him with either actual or constructive notice of the trust; but, where the defendant has entered in good faith, and, "while holding the premises under a color of title believed by him to be good," makes permanent improvements, the statute requires that something more than a notice of a trust or adverse claim shall be established before he will be deprived of permanent improvements made in good faith. To do entire justice, however, the statute requires that for the purpose solely of offsetting such improvement the petitioner for betterments shall be charged with the use and occupation of the land without regard to the three-year limitation. Section 653. It is the holder in bad faith that is deprived of his improvements, and not one who holds in good faith under a title believed by him to be good. But there must be shown, not only an honest and bona fide belief in petitioner's title, but he must satisfy the jury, also, that he had good reason for such belief, and it is for the jury to judge of the reasonableness of such belief based upon the entire evidence. R. R. Co. v. McCaskill, 98 N.C. 527, 4 S.E. 468; Justice v. Baxter, 93 N.C. 406; Merritt v. Scott, 81 N.C. 385.

The right to betterments is based upon the obvious principle of justice that the owner of land has no just claim to anything except the land itself and fair compensation for damage and loss of rent. If the claimant, acting under an erroneous but honest and reasonable belief that he is the owner, makes valuable and permanent improvements, the true owner should not take them without compensation. The statute undertakes to declare and establish the equities between them. In discussing this...