Ferguson v. . Ballenger

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Ferguson v. . Ballenger

179 S.E. 663, 208 N.C. 829, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 150

DecidedMay 1, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 179 S.E. 663 (Ferguson v. . Ballenger) 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

Ferguson v. . Ballenger, 179 S.E. 663, 208 N.C. 829, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 150 (N.C. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Per CubiaM.

We see no novel or new proposition of law involved in this appeal. The evidence was to the effect that Ballenger Brothers were tenants of plaintiff. They held over after the year expired and became tenants from year to year. They remained in possession and became liable for the year’s rent. The principle, well settled under the facts and circumstances of this case, is that a tenant cannot dispute his landlord’s title. The defendants Ballenger Brothers, in the execution of the lease, did not allege fraud or mistake and parol evidence was incompetent to contradict, add to, modify, or explain the written instrument.

The evidence fully sustains the verdict on the second issue that defendants Ballenger Brothers Coal Company, a corporation, were liable ex maleficio. The matters involved in the controversy were mainly facts for the jury’s determination. They have found for the plaintiff. Upon an examination of the exceptions and assignments of error made by defendants, we can find no prejudicial or reversible error. In the judgment of the court below, we find

No error.

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

Per CubiaM.

We see no novel or new proposition of law involved in this appeal. The evidence was to the effect that Ballenger Brothers were tenants of plaintiff. They held over after the year expired and became tenants from year to year. They remained in possession and became liable for the year’s rent. The principle, well settled under the facts and circumstances of this case, is that a tenant cannot dispute his landlord’s title. The defendants Ballenger Brothers, in the execution of the lease, did not allege fraud or mistake and parol evidence was incompetent to contradict, add to, modify, or explain the written instrument.

The evidence fully sustains the verdict on the second issue that defendants Ballenger Brothers Coal Company, a corporation, were liable ex maleficio. The matters involved in the controversy were mainly facts for the jury’s determination. They have found for the plaintiff. Upon an examination of the exceptions and assignments of error made by defendants, we can find no prejudicial or reversible error. In the judgment of the court below, we find

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.E. 663, 208 N.C. 829, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferguson-v-ballenger-nc-1935.