West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. v. Richmond Cedar Works, 26
Decision Date | 17 March 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 26,26 |
Citation | 80 S.E.2d 665,239 N.C. 627 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | WEST VIRGINIA PULP & PAPER CO. v. RICHMOND CEDAR WORKS et al. |
Nere E. Day, Jacksonville, for John T. Taylor, defendant-appellant.
Rodman & Rodman, Washington, for the petitioner-appellee.
The answering defendant asserts by his assignments of error that the proceedings hitherto had in this cause are not sufficient to establish the petitioner's title to the land sought to be registered, or to warrant quieting the petitioner's alleged title to such land as against his claim. This position is untenable.
When the answering defendant filed his answer, he put the petitioner's application for registration in contest. Contested proceedings for the registration of land titles under the Torrens Law are triable in the mode prescribed by subdivision 1, 2, and 3 of G.S. 43-11.
These statutory provisions are conched in these words:
1.
2. 'Examiner's Report.--The examiner shall, within thirty days after such hearing, unless for good cause the time shall be extended, file with the clerk a report of his conclusions of law and fact, setting forth the state of such title, any liens or encumbrances thereon, by whom held, amount due thereon, together with an abstract of title to the lands and any other information in regard thereto affecting its validity.'
3.
On a hearing before an examiner in a contested proceeding to register a land title under the Torrens Law, the same rules for proving title apply as in actions of ejectment and other actions involving the establishment of land titles. Perry v. Morgan, 219 N.C. 377, 14 S.E.2d 46; Thomasson v. Coleman, 176 Ga. 375, 167 S.E. 879; Glos v. Cessna, 207 Ill. 69, 69 N.E. 634; 76 C.J.S., Registration of Land Titles, §§ 18, 19.
These rules for proving title to land are presently relevant:
1. The general rule is, that the burden is on the plaintiff, in the trial of an action of ejectment or other action involving the establishment of a land title, to prove a title good against the world, or a title good against the defendant by estoppel. Shelly v. Grainger, 204 N.C. 488, 168 S.E. 736; Rumbough v. Sackett, 141 N.C. 495, 54 S.E. 421; Campbell v. Everhart, 139 N.C. 503, 52 S.E. 201; Mobley v. Griffin, 104 N.C. 112, 10 S.E. 142.
2. The plaintiff in an action of ejectment or other action involving the establishment of a land title may safely rest his case upon showing such facts and such evidences of title as would establish his right to the relief sought by him if no further testimony were offered. Virginia-Carolina Power Company v. Taylor, 196 N.C. 55, 144 S.E. 523; Singleton v. Roebuck, 178 N.C. 201, 100 S.E. 313; Moore v. McClain, 141 N.C. 473, 54 S.E. 382; Mobley v. Griffin, supra. 'This prima facie showing of title may be made by either of several methods.' Mobley v. Griffin, supra. See, also, in this connection: Conwell v. Mann, 100 N.C. 234, 6 S.E. 782.
3. The several methods of showing prima facie title to land in actions of ejectment and other actions involving the establishment of land titles are enumerated in the famous case of Mobley v. Griffin, supra.
4. This is one of the enumerated methods: The plaintiff proves a prima facie title to land by tracing his title back to the State as the sovereign of the soil. McDonald v. McCrummen, 235 N.C. 550, 70 S.E. 2d 703; Moore v. Miller, 179 N.C. 396, 102 S.E. 627; Caudle v. Long, 132 N.C. 675, 44 S.E. 368; Prevatt v. Harrelson, 132 N.C. 250, 43 S.E. 800; Mobley v. Griffin, supra; Graybeal v. Davis, 95 N.C. 508. The plaintiff satisfies the requirements of this method of proving a prima facie title when his evidence shows a grant from the State covering the land described in his complaint and mesne conveyances of that land to himself. Virginia-Carolina Power Company v. Taylor, supra; Buchanan v. Hedden, 169 N.C. 222, 85 N.C. 417; Caldwell Land & Lumber Co. v. Cloyd, 165 N.C. 595, 81 S.E. 752; Deaver v. Jones, 119 N.C. 598, 26 S.E. 156.
5. The plaintiff in an action of ejectment or other action involving the establishment of a land title need not prove a title alleged by him if it is judicially admitted by the defendant. Collins v. Swanson, 121 N.C. 67, 28 S.E. 65; 28 C.J.S., Ejectment, § 81....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Taylor v. Johnston
...were controverted as to the lands lying north of Mouse Harbor Canal and the provisions of G.S. 43--11 were activated. Paper Co. v. Cedar Works, 239 N.C. 627, 80 S.E.2d 665. The pertinent portions of G.S. 43--11 (a) Referred to Examiner.--Upon the return day of the summons the petition shall......
-
Robertson v. Robertson
...On these allegations the burden rested on defendants to show the location of the property excepted. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. v. Richmond Cedar Works, 239 N.C. 627, 80 S.E.2d 665; Batts v. Batts, 128 N.C. 21, 38 S.E. 132. Plaintiff alleged: 'The property left consists of a 5-room house......
-
Gahagan v. Gosnell, 357
...The plaintiff thus made out a Prima facie case, meeting the requirements laid down by Justice Ervin in West Virginia Pulp & Paper v. Richmond Cedar Works, 239 N.C. 627, 80 S.E.2d 665, in which he said, Inter alia: 'The several methods of showing Prima facie title to land in actions of eject......
-
Callaham v. Arenson, 522
... ... 1191; 26 C.J.S., Deeds, § 163 ... ...