Waelick v. Plonk
Citation | 9 S.E. 190,103 N.C. 81 |
Parties | Waelick et al. v. Plonk. |
Decision Date | 11 March 1889 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Adverse Possession—Trial—Verdict—-Jury.
1. In ejectment, the issue being as to the mental condition of plaintiffs' ancestor during a period of years in which defendant occupied the premises adversely, the court charged that if the ancestor was so mentally diseased during that period as to be unable to understand and assert his rights, —to know that he was the owner of the land, and that defendant was in possession and asserting rights, and that such possession might eventually destroyhis ownership, —plaintiffs would be entitled to recover, notwithstanding defendant's adverse pos session. Held, that the instruction was unexceptionable.
2. Rev. Code N. C. c. 65, § 1, providing that persons under mental disability shall have three years after "coming of sound mind" in which to bring their action, a special finding that plaintiffs' ancestor was " mentally incapable at all times since April 1, 1847, up to seven years prior to his death, of prosecuting and defending his rights, " is too imperfect to support a judgment, as it leaves uncertain the condition of his mind during those seven years.
3. The jury deliberated all night, and on their return to court next morning the court inquired if they thought an agreement was improbable, to which a juror replied that they stood 9 to 3. The court thereupon said to the jury that it was their duty to agree if possible; that no juror, from mere pride of opinion, hastily expressed, should refuse to agree; nor, on the other hand, should he surrender any conscientious views founded on the evidence; and that it was the duty of each juror to reason with his fellows concerning the facts, with an honest desire to arrive at the truth, and with the view of arriving at a verdict. Held entirely proper directions.
Appeal from superior court, Cleveland county; Boykin, Judge.
W. A. Hoke, for appellant. W. P. Bynum, for appellees.
The plaintiffs, as heirs at law of Christy Eaker, who died in 1885, intestate, derive title to the land sued for under a grant from the state, and successive intermediate conveyances terminating with their ancestor. The defendant claims it under deeds from one Neal to Alex Norton, dated in 1847; from Norton to Froneberger, made in 1856; and from the latter to himself, executed the same day; and an alleged continuous and adverse possession from the year 1847 to the death of said Eaker. To rebut the effects of this hostile occupation, the plaintiffs introduced evidence to show the insanity of Christy Eaker, and his mental incapacity to understand and enforce and defend his rights in the premises during an interval of more than 50 years from 1831 to the time of his death; so that, the present action having been commenced on July 17th of the same year, the running of the statute to protect the defendant's possession has been arrested, and no bar is interposed to prevent the plaintiffs' recovery. The defendant offered testimony in disproof of this contention as to the mental condition of the deceased. The controversy, in different forms, was tried before a jury at spring term, 1888, of the superior court of Cleveland, upon issues in which the findings are that the adverse possession of the premises was in plaintiff's ancestor for a period of seven years previous to April 1, 1847, and thereafter for a similar period in the defendant, and those from whom he claims. The essential matter in dispute is the alleged mental infirmity of the said Christy Eaker, and its effect in saving his rights from the operation of the limitations of the statute, which are in this feature unchanged as found in the Revised Code, c. 65, § 1, which exempts persons who are non...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Peirce
...Tripp, 113 Iowa 698, 84 N.W. 546, Burton v. Neill, 140 Iowa 141, 118 N.W. 302, Jackson v. State, 91 Wis. 253 (64 N.W. 838), Warlick v. Plonk, 103 N.C. 81 (9 S.E. 190), Ahearn v. Mann, 60 N.H. 472, have, taken approved every part of this instruction; and State v. Richardson, 137 Iowa 591, 11......
-
State v. Peirce
...84 N. W. 546,Burton v. Neill, 140 Iowa, 141, 118 N. W. 302, 17 Ann. Cas. 532,Jackson v. State, 91 Wis. 253, 64 N. W. 838,Warlick v. Plonk, 103 N. C. 81, 9 S. E. 190, and Ahearn v. Mann, 60 N. H. 472, have, taken together, approved every part of this instruction, and State v. Richardson, 137......
-
Hall's Will, In re, 666
...the facts in the case, with an honest desire to arrive at the truth, and with a view of arriving at a verdict.' Warlick v. Plonk, 103 N.C. 81, 83, 9 S.E. 190, 191. Certainly it is not error for the trial court to remind the jury of the gravity and importance of their position and the duty i......
-
State v. Chambers
... ... 258, 62 N.W. 1054.) He may ... advise jurors to lay aside their pride of judgment ... (Frandsen v. Chicago, 36 Iowa 378; Warlick v ... Plonk, 103 N.C. 81, 9 S.E. 190), and not to adhere to an ... opinion, regardless of what the other jurors say, merely ... through stubbornness (Jackson ... ...