Rhyne v. Sheppard

• Decision Date: 13 December 1944
• Docket Number: 665
• Citation: 32 S.E.2d 316,224 N.C. 734
• Parties: RHYNE et al v. SHEPPARD et ux.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

32 S.E.2d 316

224 N.C. 734

RHYNE et al v. SHEPPARD et ux.

No. 665

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 13, 1944

Civil action to recover the value of improvements placed on the lands of defendants. Heard on demurrer.

The facts alleged are in substance as follows:

Plaintiff E. L. Rhyne on 30 January 1937 purchased lots 128 and 129 in the subdivision known as Anderson Heights located in or near High Point, Guilford County. He, in the mistaken belief that they were the lots conveyed to him immediately entered into possession of lots 120 and 121 of said subdivision. He proceeded to erect a house thereon and he and his assignees, either as actual occupants or through tenants, remained in possession thereof until possession was surrendered to defendants on their demand and proof of superior title 1 January 1942.

Rhyne and wife, on 12 October 1937, conveyed lots 128 and 129 to M C. Poole and wife. Poole and wife on 24 July 1941 conveyed same to P. L. Shore, and Shore and wife on 28 July 1941 conveyed same by mortgage to plaintiff, Piedmont Building and Loan Association. It is alleged in this connection that each of said conveyances was executed with the honest belief that lots 120 and 121, together with the house thereon, were being conveyed and that each of said conveyances operated as an equitable assignment of Rhyne's claim for betterments or improvements.

It is further alleged:

'6. That E. L. Rhyne immediately after the purchase of Lots Nos 128 and 129 from W. C. Idol, on January 30, 1937, in good faith entered into possession of Lots 120 and 121, under the mistaken belief that he had a good title to said lots by virtue of his deed and that the lots occupied by him were actually Lots 128 and 129, proceeded to erect a dwelling house upon what he thought to be Lots 128 and 129, but by error as to the location of said lots erroneously erected said house upon Lots Nos. 120 and 121, the property of the defendants; that upon the erection of said house, E. L. Rhyne borrowed money thereon and executed a deed of trust upon the same and went into possession thereof, and the said E. L. Rhyne and the subsequent owners, M. C. Poole and P. L. Shore, either occupied the house personally or the same was occupied by their tenants and they collected the rent thereon, listed the same for taxes, paid the taxes and were in open and notorious possession of said property, adverse to the claims of the defendants, who at all times lived and resided in the City of High Point and made no claim to the property or any objection to the occupancy of the same by the plaintiffs or their tenants until about January 1, 1942.'

'8. That the plaintiffs, believing that they had good title to the property made permanent improvements thereon, which said improvements increased the value of the property in the amount of $1,250, said improvements being betterments placed upon the defendants' lands by the plaintiffs.'

Plaintiffs pray judgment for the value of improvements in the amount of $1,250 and an accounting for rents.

Defendants demurred for that (1) the complaint fails to state a cause of action in behalf of plaintiffs or either of them, and (2) there is a misjoinder of parties for that plaintiffs other than Rhyne and wife are neither necessary nor proper parties to the action.

The court below entered its order overruling the demurrer and defendants appealed.

Roberson, Haworth & Reese, of High Point, for plaintiffs appellees.

J. Allen Austin, of High Point, for defendants appellants.

BARNHILL Justice.

The demurrer for that plaintiffs other than Rhyne and wife are neither necessary nor proper parties to this action is well founded. Conceding but not deciding that Rhyne has a right in equity to recover for improvements made on the property of the defendant, his deed for lots 128 and 129 does not operate as an equitable assignment of his claim. His right, if any, does not run with the land upon which he mistakenly thought he was building. Alamance Lumber Co. v. Edwards, 217 N.C. 251, 7 S.E.2d 497.

His vendees purchased unimproved lots upon which they and their grantors honestly believed there was a dwelling. No doubt they have an adequate remedy, but it is not by action against the defendants for improvements made by Rhyne on the property of defendants.

That brings us to this remaining question: Has plaintiff Rhyne (his wife being merely a formal party) sufficiently alleged an enforceable claim in equity?

At common law a claim for improvements was enforced by way of a setoff against the claim of the true owner for rents and profits, and ordinarily, the remedy of such a claimant was confined to a defensive setoff. He could maintain no independent action against the owner to recover compensation. 27 Am.Jur. 279, Anno: 104 A.L.R. 578.

Even then, ordinarily, there can be no recovery in a common law action for improvements made on the lands of another by one who has no color of...