Amis v. . Stephens

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Amis v. . Stephens

16 S.E. 17, 111 N.C. 172

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 5, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 16 S.E. 17 (Amis v. . Stephens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amis v. . Stephens, 16 S.E. 17, 111 N.C. 172 (N.C. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, J.:

This case is “ on all fours” with McCulloh v. Daniel, 102 N. C., 529, which is decisive of it. His Honor’s attention was doubtless not called to that case. This is not a deed made by one tenant in common purporting to convey the whole, nor a deed of a Sheriff under an execution, sale against one tenant in common. In those cases the purchaser takes the right — neither more nor less — which the tenant in common had, and becomes a tenant in common in his stead. Hence twenty years adverse possession of the whole is necessary to bar the other tenants in common. Ward v. Farmer, 92 N. C., 93.

But here the sale, made by order of the Court in 1860, purporting to convey the whole, and the decree and deed of the commissioner to same effect, is like the deed of a stranger. It was color of title, and the defendants, and those under whom they claim, have been in adverse possession ever since. It has been more than three years since 1882 (when all the plaintiffs ceased to be under disability) to the beginning of this action, and the defendants have acquired a good title. The Code, §§ 141, 148; Johnson v. Parker, 79 N. C., 475.

Upon the facts found, judgment must be entered below in favor of the defendants. • Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Clark, J.:

This case is “ on all fours” with McCulloh v. Daniel, 102 N. C., 529, which is decisive of it. His Honor’s attention was doubtless not called to that case. This is not a deed made by one tenant in common purporting to convey the whole, nor a deed of a Sheriff under an execution, sale against one tenant in common. In those cases the purchaser takes the right — neither more nor less — which the tenant in common had, and becomes a tenant in common in his stead. Hence twenty years adverse possession of the whole is necessary to bar the other tenants in common. Ward v. Farmer, 92 N. C., 93.

But here the sale, made by order of the Court in 1860, purporting to convey the whole, and the decree and deed of the commissioner to same effect, is like the deed of a stranger. It was color of title, and the defendants, and those under whom they claim, have been in adverse possession ever since. It has been more than three years since 1882 (when all the plaintiffs ceased to be under disability) to the beginning of this action, and the defendants have acquired a good title. The Code, §§ 141, 148; Johnson v. Parker, 79 N. C., 475.

Upon the facts found, judgment must be entered below in favor of the defendants. • Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 S.E. 17, 111 N.C. 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amis-v-stephens-nc-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack