Sansom v. Warren
| Decision Date | 19 April 1939 |
| Docket Number | 385. |
| Parties | SANSOM et al. v. WARREN. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
The evidence, introduced under appropriate pleadings, was substantially as follows:
Stated in chronological order: Joe T. Warren conveyed the 12.4-acre tract of land in controversy to Clifford Warren by deed dated September 19, 1934, which was registered September 22, 1934 reciting a consideration of $475; Clifford Warren conveyed the land back to Joe T. Warren by deed dated October 26 1934, filed for registration the same day, reciting a consideration of $475. Joe T. Warren and wife executed to Clifford Warren a deed upon the same land dated November 28 1934, filed for registration October 31, 1938, reciting a consideration of $475. Joe T. Warren and wife, Bertha Warren conveyed the same land to T. H. Sansom by deed dated August 12, 1936, and filed for registration the same day. Sansom and wife conveyed the land to N. M. Johnson by deed dated January 3, 1938, which deed was filed and registered July 27, 1938. It recites a consideration of $100 and other valuable considerations.
The tract of land which was the subject of these various conveyances had been allotted to Joe T. Warren as his homestead, and, upon the first deed made to Clifford Warren, N. M. Johnson having been advised that the homestead right had fallen in, brought an action against Clifford Warren to subject the lands to the lien of the judgment against J. T. Warren, which had been transferred to Johnson. Thereupon, following some negotiations between Clifford Warren and Joe T. Warren, Clifford Warren reconveyed the lands to Joe T. Warren, and Johnson abandoned his suit. This was followed by another conveyance of Joe T. Warren to Clifford Warren, this being the conveyance of November 28, 1934.
The plaintiff N. M. Johnson testified that Joe T. Warren had sent for him and offered to convey to him the lands in controversy in settlement for an old account of $817 and a judgment that had been assigned to Johnson; that his lawyer advised him that it would be better to have the deed made to Sansom; that Sansom did not know anything about the making of the deed until a long time thereafter, and did not pay Warren anything for the deed; that although the deed made by Sansom and wife to this plaintiff recited $100 and other valuable considerations, plaintiff paid nothing for it. Johnson did not take the deed in satisfaction of any indebtedness of Sansom, as Sansom was not indebted to the plaintiff. Johnson further testified that he had brought the suit against Clifford Warren after the latter received his deed from Joe T. Warren, because he had been advised that he could not collect it out of Joe T. Warren so long as it was held as a homestead; that he knew a deed from Joe T. Warren to Sansom would subject the lands to his deed just as quickly and effectively as a deed from Joe T. Warren to Clifford Warren.
Plaintiff further testified that when Sansom got the deed, plaintiff was advised to get up an agreed statement of facts between him and Sansom and take the thing up to the Supreme Court and "see what they would do for me."
Plaintiff further testified that Warren owed him about $1,000 principal and interest on the assigned judgment, and an account of $817.92; that he had not canceled the judgment or account but was to do so when the matter was cleared up.
The plaintiff Sansom testified (as a witness for defendant), that while the deed of Joe T. Warren and Bertha Warren to him recites a consideration of $100, he did not pay anything; that neither Joe T. Warren nor Bertha Warren were indebted to him in any amount; that on January 9, 1939, he (Sansom) and his wife executed a deed for the land to N. M. Johnson, reciting a consideration of $100; that Johnson did not pay them any sum whatever, and at the time neither Sansom nor his wife were indebted to Johnson.
As a further source of title, the defendant put in evidence a deed from Carlyle Jackson, Sheriff of Sampson County, to Clifford Warren, dated 15th, January, 1937, and filed for registration on that day, reciting the levy of execution and the advertisement of sale of the lands in controversy at an execution sale upon a judgment rendered in the Recorder's Court of Dunn, on April 1, 1920, for $292.06 and interest, and in support thereof the judgment roll in the action.
On cross-examination, over objection of defendant, the plaintiff Sansom testified: "The land was deeded to me to be held for Mr. Johnson, and, when we got the title straightened out, I was to deed it to Mr. Johnson." It was admitted that the deed of J. T. Warren to the defendant, Clifford Warren, was made for a valuable consideration.
At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence, and again at the conclusion of all the evidence, the defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit, which was overruled, and defendant excepted.
Upon the issues submitted to the jury, which upon instruction by the Court were answered in favor of the plaintiff, judgment was rendered declaring the plaintiff to be the owner and entitled to possession of the lands, and ordering the defendant's muniments of title to be canceled upon the record. From this judgment, the defendant appealed.
Butler & Butler, of Clinton, for appellant.
I. R. Williams, of Dunn, and W. H. Fisher, of Clinton, for appellees.
The plaintiff N. M. Johnson has evidenced a chain of paper title from the common source sufficient, nothing else appearing, to establish his right to be declared the owner of the lands in controversy. So has the defendant. However, although defendant has a priority in point of time of conveyance, the plaintiff's deeds were recorded first. But for our Registration Act, C. S. § 3309, known as the Connor Act by virtue of the 1885 Amendment, the defendant, having the first conveyance, would have the superior title. This familiar statute reads in part: "No conveyance of land, or contract to convey, or lease of land for more than three years shall be valid to pass any property, as against creditors or purchasers for a valuable consideration, from the donor, bargainor or lessor, but from the registration thereof within the county where the land lies."
Although there are other features to which we will refer, the case hinges upon the question whether N. M. Johnson is a purchaser for a valuable consideration within the purview of this statute. Upon the record before us we are compelled to hold that he is not.
The valuable consideration urged by the plaintiff as sufficient to give him the status of a purchaser for value...
To continue reading
Request your trial