Virginia-Carolina Power Co. v. Taylor
Decision Date | 21 September 1927 |
Docket Number | 86,87. |
Parties | VIRGINIA-CAROLINA POWER CO. v. TAYLOR. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Northampton County; Grady, Judge.
Ejectment by the Virginia-Carolina Power Company against Job Taylor. Verdict for plaintiff was set aside, and both parties appeal. Affirmed.
In ejectment, the burden is on plaintiff to establish title to the land in dispute.
Civil action in ejectment to recover possession of a tract of land located in the bed of Roanoke river, a nonnavigable stream.
Upon issues raised by denial of plaintiff's title and claim of ownership by adverse possession on the part of the defendant the jury returned the following verdict:
Plaintiff alleges error in the following instruction relative to the burden of proof:
'
Upon the coming in of the verdict, defendant moved for judgment which was refused. Defendant excepted. His honor then set aside the verdict, not as a matter of discretion, but for errors committed in the trial of the cause, mentioning especially his ruling in holding void, or merely as color of title, a grant issued to William Eaton in 1790, under which the plaintiff claims. Defendant again excepted and appealed. The plaintiff also appeals, bringing up other exceptions in support of the action of the court in setting aside the verdict of the jury as a matter of law.
George C. Green, of Weldon, for plaintiff.
Travis & Travis, of Halifax, Burgwyn & Norfleet, of Jackson, and Chas. R. Daniel, of Weldon, for defendant.
The two appeals present the same questions for review; hence, they will be considered together. The case has been tried three times in the superior court, and this is the third appeal here. See former opinions, as reported in 191 N.C. 329, 131 S.E. 656, and 188 N.C. 351, 124 S.E. 634, for fuller statement of the facts. Its only rival among the more recent decisions seems to be the quadruply-tried ejectment suit of Taylor v. Meadows, 186 N.C. 353, 119 S.E. 483; 182 N.C. 266, 108 S.E. 755; 175 N.C. 373, 95 S.E. 662; 169 N.C. 124, 85 S.E. 1.
We would not permit the case to go back for another hearing if the verdict could be reinstated without doing violence to settled principles of law. Burris v. Litaker, 181 N.C. 376, 107 S.E. 129. Verdicts and judgments are not to be set aside for harmless error, or for mere error and no more. State v. Beam, 184 N.C. 730, 115 S.E. 176. Appellate courts will not encourage litigation by reversing judgments for slight error, or stated objections, which could not have prejudiced the rights of the complaining party in any material way. In re Ross, 182 N.C. 477, 109 S.E. 365. New trials are awarded for erroneous rulings only when such rulings are material or prejudicial in a legal sense. In re Edens, 182 N.C. 398, 109 S.E. 269.
Notwithstanding these established rules of procedure, which we are required to observe, still we are unable to reverse the judgment and reinstate the verdict in the face of the above exception to the charge on the burden of proof. It is uniformly held that the rule as to the burden of proof is important in the trial of causes, and that it constitutes a substantial right of the party upon whose adversary the burden rests. Hosiery Co v. Express Co., 184 N.C. 480, 114 S.E. 823. A similar charge was held for error in Land Co. v. Floyd, 171 N.C. 543, 88 S.E. 862. There it was said that when the plaintiff in ejectment shows title to the premises, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Efird's Will
...182 N.C. 477, 109 S.E. 365; Dickerson v. R. R., 190 N.C. 292, 129 S.E. 810; Harvey v. Tull, 192 N.C. 826, 135 S.E. 534; Power Co. v. Taylor, 194 N.C. 231, 139 S.E. 381. the courts, under similar situations, have held "and" to mean "or," but the error is technical and harmless on the present......
-
Vance v. Pritchard
... ... principle set forth in Virginia-Carolina Power Co. v ... Taylor, 194 N.C. 231, 139 S.E. 381, and cases there ... cited, where ... ...
-
Johnson v. Fry
...is sufficient to establish title in this jurisdiction. C. S. §§ 428 and 430; Power Co. v. Taylor, 191 N.C. 329, 131 S.E. 646; s. c., 194 N.C. 231 Succinctly, Evander McIver, without deed, had been in possession of the land in controversy some 6 years, and went into the possession under Ben ......
-
Thomas v. Hipp
... ... to a claim for title by adverse possession. Mann v ... Taylor, 49 N.C. 272, 69 Am.Dec. 750; Deaver v ... [223 N.C. 519] Jones, 114 N.C. 649, 19 S.E. 637; ... burden on that issue. Virginia-Carolina Power Co. v ... Taylor, 194 N.C. 231, 139 S.E. 381 ... For the ... reasons ... ...