Belangia v. Branning Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Belangia v. Branning Manufacturing Co.

67 S.E. 48, 152 N.C. 3, 1910 N.C. LEXIS 191

DecidedFebruary 25, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 67 S.E. 48 (Belangia v. Branning Manufacturing Co.) 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

Belangia v. Branning Manufacturing Co., 67 S.E. 48, 152 N.C. 3, 1910 N.C. LEXIS 191 (N.C. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark:, C. J.

Action for damages for cutting timber. The plaintiffs claim title as heirs at law of Thomas and Richard Navis, Jr. They deraign their title from a grant of 60,000 acres to Josiah Collins, 9 July, 1796, which it is admitted covers the locus in- quo, and a deed, 11 March, 1809, from Collins to Richard Davis, Sr., for said 60,000 acres. On 27 March, 1809, Richard Davis conveyed 57,000 acres thereof by metes and bounds to Elisha Hassell. He made thereafter several deeds to other parties for land out of said 60,000-aere tract. These were not located, but the defendant contends that, presumably, they conveyed parts of the 3,000 acres which Davis had not conveyed to Hassell. The will of Richard Davis, Sr., *4 probated July Term, 1822, devised Ms lauds to Ms sons, Thomas and Richard Davis, Jr., and under decree of court Richard Halley, administrator of- Richard Davis, Sr., 4 September, 1823, sold “the lands of Richard Davis,” among them “1,300 acres, the residue of said (Collins) tract of 3,000,” and executed title to the purchaser, Enoch Hassell. ' During all the years from 1823 down to the beginning of this action the plaintiffs and those under whom they claim have exercised no ownership over the locus in quo, set up no claim to it and paid no taxes upon it. His Honor correctly told the jury that if they found the facts to be as testified to by the witnesses to find the issue as to 'title against the plaintiffs. The land was sold to pay the debts of Richard Davis, Sr., and the defendant bought this land years ago from the State Board of Education and paid for it. There was no evidence to warrant the jury in finding a verdict for the plaintiffs.

No error.

’WaliceR., J., dissenting.

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

Clark:, C. J.

Action for damages for cutting timber. The plaintiffs claim title as heirs at law of Thomas and Richard Navis, Jr. They deraign their title from a grant of 60,000 acres to Josiah Collins, 9 July, 1796, which it is admitted covers the locus in- quo, and a deed, 11 March, 1809, from Collins to Richard Davis, Sr., for said 60,000 acres. On 27 March, 1809, Richard Davis conveyed 57,000 acres thereof by metes and bounds to Elisha Hassell. He made thereafter several deeds to other parties for land out of said 60,000-aere tract. These were not located, but the defendant contends that, presumably, they conveyed parts of the 3,000 acres which Davis had not conveyed to Hassell. The will of Richard Davis, Sr., *4 probated July Term, 1822, devised Ms lauds to Ms sons, Thomas and Richard Davis, Jr., and under decree of court Richard Halley, administrator of- Richard Davis, Sr., 4 September, 1823, sold “the lands of Richard Davis,” among them “1,300 acres, the residue of said (Collins) tract of 3,000,” and executed title to the purchaser, Enoch Hassell. ' During all the years from 1823 down to the beginning of this action the plaintiffs and those under whom they claim have exercised no ownership over the locus in quo, set up no claim to it and paid no taxes upon it. His Honor correctly told the jury that if they found the facts to be as testified to by the witnesses to find the issue as to 'title against the plaintiffs. The land was sold to pay the debts of Richard Davis, Sr., and the defendant bought this land years ago from the State Board of Education and paid for it. There was no evidence to warrant the jury in finding a verdict for the plaintiffs.

No error.

’WaliceR., J., dissenting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 S.E. 48, 152 N.C. 3, 1910 N.C. LEXIS 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belangia-v-branning-manufacturing-co-nc-1910.