Rollins v. Rollins

• Decision Date: 31 January 1877
• Citation: 76 N.C. 264
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: P. ROLLINS and others v. HAM ROLLINS and R. M. HENRY.

76 N.C. 264

P. ROLLINS and others

v.HAM ROLLINS and R. M. HENRY.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1877.

CIVIL ACTION to recover possession of Real Estate tried at Fall Term, 1875, of BUNCOMBE Superior Court, before Henry, J.

The plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners of certain real estate in the County of Buncombe, known as the “Sulphur Spring lands.”

The opinion of this Court delivered by Mr. Justice Bynum contains the material facts in the case and proceedings in the Court below.

His Honor gave judgment against the defendants for want of a bond and answer and adjudged that the plaintiff recover possession of the lands described in the complaint. Defendant Henry appealed.

Mr. J. H. Merrimon, for plaintiffs .

Messrs. J. G. Martin & Son and Battle & Mordecai, for defendants .

BYNUM, J.

An action brought by the plaintiffs to recover of the defendant the possession of real estate. At the return term the defendant answered denying the plaintiff's title; and a third party, to-wit, R. M. Henry, filed an affidavit alleging that he was the owner of the land and that the defendant Rollins was in possession and holding as his tenant; wherefore he demanded to be let in to defend as landlord this and four other actions brought by the same plaintiffs against other parties for the same lands under the same claim of title. The plaintiffs opposed the motion and read affidavits to show that the defendant was their tenant and as such was estopped to deny their title. Counter affidavits were read by Henry to establish the contrary. The Court upon all the affidavits proceeded to find the facts and to declare as a matter of law thereupon that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiffs and could not be heard to deny their title; wherefore he denied the motion of Henry to be allowed to defend as landlord and gave judgment and awarded a writ of possession against the tenant. Henry appealed to this Court. There is error. The case is somewhat novel. Two parties claim adversely to each other to be the landlord of the same tenant of the same premises at the same time; and it may be, that the acts of the tenant have been such that he is estopped from denying the title of either; as by taking a lease from one, attorning and paying rent to the other. Now it is perfectly well settled that even at common law the landlord has the right to defend either with or instead of the tenant. But the question is, when two claim to be landlord, the plaintiff and a third party, has the latter the right to defend? The answer is this; where a person claims in opposition to the title of the tenant in possession, he cannot be considered as landlord; but the term “landlord” for the purposes of the action extends to every person whose title is connected to and consistent with the possession of the occupier and is divested or disturbed by any claim adverse to such possession. Adams on Eject. 228-31. Oxendon v. Lawrence, W. Bl. 1259. So that now it is considered as settled that the word landlord is extended to all persons claiming title consistent with the possession of the occupier; and that it is not necessary they should have previously exercised any act of ownership over the lands. All such persons have the right to defend as landlord and no other. The proper manner of asserting to the Court the right to...