Ramsey v. Ramsey
| Decision Date | 29 September 1948 |
| Docket Number | 101 |
| Citation | 49 S.E.2d 476,229 N.C. 270 |
| Parties | RAMSEY et ux. v. RAMSEY et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Civil action in ejectment in which defendants plead title by adverse possession.
Plaintiff J. E. Ramsey and defendant S. T. Ramsey own adjoining tracts of land. They are the real parties in interest and will be so treated, 'plaintiff' being used to designate J. E Ramsey, and 'defendant' to designate S. T. Ramsey. They claim from a common source. Plaintiff has the senior title, and the deeds in defendant's chain of title call for the plaintiff's line as the esstern boundary line of defendant's tract. The dividing line under the calls in the plaintiff's deed begins 'at a beech on the South bank of the creek below where the said J. C. Ramsey deceased, used to live; thence S. 16 poles to a stake on a ridge. ' The location of the beginning corner in this call is admitted.
During the 'no stock law' era, each owner built a fence around his arable land. Plaintiff's fence extends westerly along the public road to a point near a spring thence at an angle southwesterly to the dividing line, and thence south approximately along the dividing line. Defendant's fence also extends along the public road easterly to a point on the opposite side of the spring thence at an angle southeasterly to the common fence along the dividing line. This leaves a small triangular tract outside the fence, facing on the road, on which is located a spring on plaintiff's side of the dividing line. Defendant and those under whom he claims have for years used this spring for general purposes. They have built a spring house and have kept the spring in usable condition for more than 50 years.
Originally in his answer defendant asserted that his line extended considerably to the east of the line as contended for by plaintiff and embraced the spring tract. He pleaded ownership of the lappage by adverse possession for 20 years and also adverse possession under color. But during the trial the parties entered into the following stipulation:
This stipulation narrowed the case to a controversy over the small triangular tract outside the fences upon which the spring is located. This, of course, involved the location of the true dividing line as well as defendant's claim of ownership by adverse possession.
The court submitted the issues which appear of record. The jury answered the issues bottomed on plaintiff's cause of action in favor of plaintiff but did not answer those directed to defendant's affirmative plea. The verdict as thus rendered was accepted by the court without objection on the part of defendant. The court rendered judgment on the verdict and defendants appealed.
Smathers & Meekins, of Asheville, and Carl R. Stuart, of Marshall, for plaintiffappellees.
J. M. Baley, Jr., of Marshall, and George M. Pritchard, of Asheville, for defendantappellants.
The uncontroverted evidence locates the boundary line from the beech to a point on the ridge as contended by plaintiff and as shown on the court map. This places the triangular tract on which the spring is located within the bounds of the deeds relied on by plaintiff. Plaintiff's line, as thus located, is the eastern line of the tract claimed by defendant under the express call in his deed. Thus defendant's claim to this small tract must rest on proof of adverse possession for 20 years.
Whether defendant has offered any evidence of open, notorious exclusive, and continuous adverse possession under known and visible boundary lines is questionable. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial