Board of Education v. Union Development Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Board of Education v. Union Development Co.

74 S.E. 1015, 159 N.C. 162, 1912 N.C. LEXIS 251

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 28, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 S.E. 1015 (Board of Education v. Union Development 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

Board of Education v. Union Development Co., 74 S.E. 1015, 159 N.C. 162, 1912 N.C. LEXIS 251 (N.C. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Hoke, J.

As we understand the record, this is an action to remove a cloud from the title to an acre of land, held and claimed by plaintiff for school purposes, and arising by reason of an adverse claim made to said land by the individual defendants, B. M. Orr et al. During the progress of the trial it appeared that plaintiff board had prepared a deed for the land in controversy to the defendant the Union Development Company and deposited the same as an escrow with Mr. George B. Walker, to be delivered when said company had executed a deed to plaintiff for one acre of the company's land for *164 school purposes, to be selected by the school board, and that this site had not been selected nor the deed therefor made by the company at the time of trial. Upon these facts, we think that the action should have been allowed to proceed. It is very generally held that in case of an escrow until condition performed, the title remains in the grantor, and the ordinary actions for the protection of the property and preservation of the title may be brought by him. County of Calhoun v. Emigrant Co., 93 U. S., 124; Fuller v. Hollis, 57 Ala., 435; Merchants Ins. Co. v. Nowlin, 56 S. W., 198 (Tex. Civ. App.); 3 Washburne on Real Property (5th Ed.), p. 321; Hopkins on Real Property, p. 135; 16 Cyc., p. 578.

The case of Arrington v. Arrington, 114 N. C., 116, does not antagonize the principle, and Craddock v. Barnes, 142 N. C., 89, is in direct recognition of it. Thus, in page 97, Associate Justice Walker, delivering the opinion, says: “It is therefore the performance of the condition and not the second delivery that gives it vitality as a deed sufficient to pass the title,” etc.

Apart from this, an action of this character is in the nature of an equitable proceeding, the scope of the relief having been somewhat enlarged and extended by the provisions of our statute, Revisal, sec. 1589. 6 Pomeroy’s Eq. Jurisprudence, sec. 724 el seq. And even in case of conditions performed pending suit, the grantor and grantee and adverse claimants being all before the court, there seems to be no reason, if the parties so desire, why the trial of the cause should not be proceeded with.

There was error in the ruling of the court, and this will be certified, that the order of nonsuit be set aside and the issues raised properly determined.

Error.

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

Hoke, J.

As we understand the record, this is an action to remove a cloud from the title to an acre of land, held and claimed by plaintiff for school purposes, and arising by reason of an adverse claim made to said land by the individual defendants, B. M. Orr et al. During the progress of the trial it appeared that plaintiff board had prepared a deed for the land in controversy to the defendant the Union Development Company and deposited the same as an escrow with Mr. George B. Walker, to be delivered when said company had executed a deed to plaintiff for one acre of the company's land for *164 school purposes, to be selected by the school board, and that this site had not been selected nor the deed therefor made by the company at the time of trial. Upon these facts, we think that the action should have been allowed to proceed. It is very generally held that in case of an escrow until condition performed, the title remains in the grantor, and the ordinary actions for the protection of the property and preservation of the title may be brought by him. County of Calhoun v. Emigrant Co., 93 U. S., 124; Fuller v. Hollis, 57 Ala., 435; Merchants Ins. Co. v. Nowlin, 56 S. W., 198 (Tex. Civ. App.); 3 Washburne on Real Property (5th Ed.), p. 321; Hopkins on Real Property, p. 135; 16 Cyc., p. 578.

The case of Arrington v. Arrington, 114 N. C., 116, does not antagonize the principle, and Craddock v. Barnes, 142 N. C., 89, is in direct recognition of it. Thus, in page 97, Associate Justice Walker, delivering the opinion, says: “It is therefore the performance of the condition and not the second delivery that gives it vitality as a deed sufficient to pass the title,” etc.

Apart from this, an action of this character is in the nature of an equitable proceeding, the scope of the relief having been somewhat enlarged and extended by the provisions of our statute, Revisal, sec. 1589. 6 Pomeroy’s Eq. Jurisprudence, sec. 724 el seq. And even in case of conditions performed pending suit, the grantor and grantee and adverse claimants being all before the court, there seems to be no reason, if the parties so desire, why the trial of the cause should not be proceeded with.

There was error in the ruling of the court, and this will be certified, that the order of nonsuit be set aside and the issues raised properly determined.

Error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 S.E. 1015, 159 N.C. 162, 1912 N.C. LEXIS 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-education-v-union-development-co-nc-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack