Williams v. Wallace

• Decision Date: 31 January 1878
• Citation: 78 N.C. 354
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: HARPER WILLIAMS v. SALLIE R. WALLACE and P. H. ALBERTSON.

78 N.C. 354

HARPER WILLIAMS

v.SALLIE R. WALLACE and P. H. ALBERTSON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1878.

CIVIL ACTION for Damages for Trespass on Land tried at Spring Term, 1877, of DUPLIN Superior Court, before Seymour, J.

The plaintiff alleged that he was the owner in fee of certain lands lying near Sarecta on the North East River in Duplin County, and that the defendants had entered upon the same to the annoyance of the plaintiff's tenants, and were endeavoring to dispossess him of the same. The defendants alleged that the title was in defendant Wallace, and not in plaintiff, and for a further defence say that said defendant has been in possession for more than three years prior to the commencement of this action, and deny the alleged trespass in cutting down and destroying a large number of valuable trees, &c. The facts set out by Mr. Justice BYNUM in delivering the opinion are deemed sufficient to an understanding of the point decided. Upon an intimation of His Honor that the plaintiff had failed to show a good title to the land, he submitted to a nonsuit and appealed.

Messrs. J. N. Stallings and Merrimon, Fuller & Ashe, for plaintiff .

Mr. H. R. Kornegay, for defendants .

BYNUM, J.

This is a plain case for the defendants. It is admitted that the title of the locus in quo was in the defendant Sallie Wallace in 1844. It is immaterial what has become of her title since, unless the plaintiff has connected himself with it. This he has not done, but on the contrary he claims under the deed of one Seth Davis who purported to sell the land as administrator of one J. P. Davis by deed ??ated the 28th of September, 1857. This title was therefore a defective one, and could ripen into a good title by an ??adverse possession of seven years only.

But as the action was begun on the 4th day of February, ??874, after eliminating the time during which the running ??f the statute of limitations was suspended, only six years ??nd nine months had elapsed before the commencement of ??he action, so the title was not perfected in this way. But ?? o length of constructive possession will ripen a defective ??itle into a good one. To have this effect the possession ??ust be actual and continous.

This action therefore can only be maintained upon the possession of the plaintiff. If he has failed to show an actual occupation by himself, the law adjudges the possession to be constructively with the title, that is, with the defendant Sallie Wallace, and those deriving title under her.

When there is no actual occupation shown, the law carries the possession to the real title. So it is immaterial in this view whether the defendants had the actual possession or not.

The question then is, whether the plaintiff having only a defective title had been for seven years in the...