Ramsey v. Nebel
| Decision Date | 16 October 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 309.,309. |
| Citation | 39 S.E.2d 616 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | RAMSEY et al. v. NEBEL et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Watauga County; F. D. Phillips, Judge.
Suit in ejectment by Mrs. Helen Colt Ramsey and others against Mrs. Marion Nebel and husband. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
This is a suit in ejectment between the owners of adjoining lots in the town of Blowing Rock. They derive their respective titles from a common source, and the controversy concerns a small strip of land along the common dividing line.
The complaint sets up, by metes and bounds, a description of the land claimed by plaintiffs, with the allegation that defendants are in the wrongful possession of a part thereof and have trespassed thereupon by structure of buildings and cutting therefrom valuable trees. The defendants answer, denying that they are in possession of, or have trespassed upon, any land belonging to plaintiffs, describing the land which they claim by metes and bounds; and allege that they have been in "peaceable, continuous, open, notorious and adverse possession" of the land under color of title for more than seven years next prior to the commencement of the action and plead the seven year statute, G.S. § 1-38, inbar of recovery. They also allege that they and those under whom they claim have been in "peaceable, notorious, continuous and adverse possession of said lands under color of title for a period of more than twenty years next prior to the commencement of this action, which said statute of limitation is specifically pleaded in bar." G.S. § 1-40.
They further allege that during the time defendants were building on the strip of land in controversy, the plaintiffs well knew it and did nothing to put defendants on notice that the structure "should not be built where it was being built" and that as a matter of law, plaintiffs are therefore estopped to claim title to the land so occupied.
There was an order of survey, which was made, and maps were filed.
At April Term, 1945, by consent of parties, an order was made referring the controversy to Honorable Charles H. Hughes, Attorney at Law, who duly heard the matter upon evidence and argument, and made and reported his findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Inter alia, plaintiffs' evidence tended to show that the encroachment by defendants on the land in controversy was deliberate and with full knowledge of plaintiffs' title. Testimony by the defendant Nebel was in contradiction of plaintiffs' testimony. In view of the conclusions reached in the decision, that evidence is not set out here in detail.
More particularly bearing upon the decision, the referee found as fact that the deed under which the defendants claim did not cover the disputed strip as designated in the court map, but that the true location of the dividing line was as claimed by plaintiffs. Within his finding of fact, there is stated that the first occupancy or work of any kind done on the disputed strip was subsequent to the purchase of the companion lot by Nebel Knitting Co., predecessor of defendants in title, in 1933; as to which fact there is now no dispute. The referee, however, found as a fact that the occupancy and possession of the strip in controversy by the defendants was in good faith and without the protest of plaintiffs "until the new cottage was completed" and that the defendants were, therefore, the legal owners of the land.
In his conclusions of law, the referee points out that defendants had been in the actual and open adverse possession of the lands in dispute since the latter part of the year 1933, erecting stone walls thereupon, and a garage building, and maintaining a chicken lot, a flower garden and lawn, "without any protest or objections on the part of plaintiffs, and in 1941, and 1942 erected a cottage, a part of which was on the land in dispute"; and concludes that "by reason of such conduct the plaintiffs are now estopped to deny the right and title of defendants to the land in dispute"; and concludes that the defendants are the rightful holders of the title.
Upon the filing of this report, the plaintiffs filed specific exceptions to the findings of fact other than those fixing the true dividing line between the litigants as contended for by plaintiffs and other matters, including the date of the Nebel occupancy; but including in such exceptions the finding that the Nebel occupancy was in good faith; and also excepted to the conclusion of law that plaintiffs were now estopped to deny the defendants' title to the land now in dispute and the conclusion that the title was now in the defendants. The defendants filed no exceptions, but made a motion to confirm the report as it stood, which motion was denied, and the defendants excepted.
Passing upon this report and exceptions thereto at April Term, 1946, of Watauga Superior Court, and after...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodrich Corp. v. United States
...v. Barrett, 238 N.C. 579, 78 S.E.2d 730 (1953); Sparrow v. Dixie Leaf Tobacco Co., 232 N.C. 589, 61 S.E.2d 700 (1950); Ramsey v. Nebel, 226 N.C. 590, 39 S.E.2d 616 (1946); Orchard Scenic Development Co. v. Bon Marche, 211 N.C. 272, 189 S.E. 781 (1937); Miller v. Miller, 200 N.C. 458, 157 S.......
-
Newkirk v. Porter
...233 N.C. 710, 65 S.E.2d 673; Gibson v. Dudley, 233 N.C. 255, 63 S.E.2d 630; Wallin v. Rice, 232 N.C. 371, 61 S.E.2d 82; Ramsey v. Nebel, 226 N.C. 590, 39 S.E.2d 616; Alexander v. Richmond Cedar Works, 177 N.C. 137, 98 S.E. 312; May v. Mfg. & Trading Co., 164 N.C. 262, 80 S.E. Continuity of ......
-
Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Wayne Finance Co., 306
...v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., 242 N.C. 1, 86 S.E.2d 745; Hawkins v. M. & J. Finance Corp., 238 N.C. 174, 77 S.E.2d 669; Ramsey v. Nebel, 226 N.C. 590, 39 S.E.2d 616; 31 C.J.S. Estoppel, § 103, p. We find no merit in defendant's contention that it should be adjudged the owner of the proceeds......
-
Sparrow v. Dixie Leaf Tobacco Co.
...claiming title to the land or denying the title of defendants. But these facts are not sufficient to work an estoppel. Ramsey v. Nebel, 226 N.C. 590, 39 S.E.2d 616. The possession of the defendant tobacco company is the possession of the railroad and the railroad possesses only an easement.......