Cooper v. . Axley

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Cooper v. . Axley

19 S.E. 639, 114 N.C. 643

DecidedFebruary 5, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 19 S.E. 639 (Cooper v. . Axley) 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

Cooper v. . Axley, 19 S.E. 639, 114 N.C. 643 (N.C. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Avery, J.:

Graham, claiming under a deed from Black *646 well, during the month of January, 1891, put the defendant as his clerk in possession of the land in dispute. On the 31st day of the same month Graham roeonveyed to Blackwell, who had previously conveyed the premises to him. A person holds possession for himself or by his agents, his servants or his tenants. Williams v. Wallace, 78 N. C., 354; Ruffin v. Overby, 105 N. C., 86. Axley was therefore holding as the agent or servant of Graham, when the latter reconveyed to Blackwell, through whom the plaintiff claims by mesne conveyances. Being his servant, Axley is as certainly estopped by Graham’s deed as is the grantor himself, with whom he is in privity. He occupies the same relation as a tenant of Graham as did Graham himself to those holding under his deed, and it” does not seem that he was entitled to the favor which the Court extended in submitting the case under the rule of evidence applicable, where contestants deraign title from a common source. The- defendant in this case was estopped by the deed of Graham, with whom he is in privity, not confined simply bj1- a rule of evidence to testimony tending to connect himself with the better title shown in Montgomery Bell or his heirs by the grant dated May 31, 1853. But he failed upon the testimony offered to connect himself with that grant, and in any view of the evidence, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

Judgment Affirmed.

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

Avery, J.:

Graham, claiming under a deed from Black *646 well, during the month of January, 1891, put the defendant as his clerk in possession of the land in dispute. On the 31st day of the same month Graham roeonveyed to Blackwell, who had previously conveyed the premises to him. A person holds possession for himself or by his agents, his servants or his tenants. Williams v. Wallace, 78 N. C., 354; Ruffin v. Overby, 105 N. C., 86. Axley was therefore holding as the agent or servant of Graham, when the latter reconveyed to Blackwell, through whom the plaintiff claims by mesne conveyances. Being his servant, Axley is as certainly estopped by Graham’s deed as is the grantor himself, with whom he is in privity. He occupies the same relation as a tenant of Graham as did Graham himself to those holding under his deed, and it” does not seem that he was entitled to the favor which the Court extended in submitting the case under the rule of evidence applicable, where contestants deraign title from a common source. The- defendant in this case was estopped by the deed of Graham, with whom he is in privity, not confined simply bj1- a rule of evidence to testimony tending to connect himself with the better title shown in Montgomery Bell or his heirs by the grant dated May 31, 1853. But he failed upon the testimony offered to connect himself with that grant, and in any view of the evidence, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

Judgment Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 S.E. 639, 114 N.C. 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-axley-nc-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack