Goins v. . McLoud

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Goins v. . McLoud

46 S.E.2d 712, 228 N.C. 655, 1948 N.C. LEXIS 290

DecidedMarch 24, 1948

StatusPublished

This text of 46 S.E.2d 712 (Goins v. . McLoud) 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

Goins v. . McLoud, 46 S.E.2d 712, 228 N.C. 655, 1948 N.C. LEXIS 290 (N.C. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

BarNhilu, J.

The magistrate before whom this action was instituted had jurisdiction only in the event the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between plaintiff and defendant. Gr. S. 42-26; Howell v. Branson, 2 26 N. C., 264, 37 S. E. (2d), 687. On appeal the jurisdiction of the Superior Court was derivative and trial there was limited to the issues properly raised in the court of origin. Wells v. West, 212 N. C., 656, 194 S. E., 313; Allen v. Insurance Co., 213 N. C., 586, 197 S. E., 200; Cheek v. Insurance Co., 215 N. C., 36, 1 S. E. (2d), 115; Leonard v. Coble, 222 N. C., 552, 23 S. E. (2d), 841; Howell v. Branson, supra. In brief these were: (1) Was there a contract of tenancy creating the relationship of landlord and tenant; and if so, (2) did defendant hold over or continue in possession after the expiration of his term?

That defendant entered into possession of the premises as tenant of plaintiff was denied. The evidence in respect thereto was in sharp conflict. The jury has resolved the question in favor of defendant, in a trial free from error.

Plaintiff argues that defendant is at least a tenant at sufferance or at will. If so, his remedy is not by summary ejectment, and the issue was not triable in this cause.

In the trial below we find

.No error.

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

BarNhilu, J.

The magistrate before whom this action was instituted had jurisdiction only in the event the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between plaintiff and defendant. Gr. S. 42-26; Howell v. Branson, 2 26 N. C., 264, 37 S. E. (2d), 687. On appeal the jurisdiction of the Superior Court was derivative and trial there was limited to the issues properly raised in the court of origin. Wells v. West, 212 N. C., 656, 194 S. E., 313; Allen v. Insurance Co., 213 N. C., 586, 197 S. E., 200; Cheek v. Insurance Co., 215 N. C., 36, 1 S. E. (2d), 115; Leonard v. Coble, 222 N. C., 552, 23 S. E. (2d), 841; Howell v. Branson, supra. In brief these were: (1) Was there a contract of tenancy creating the relationship of landlord and tenant; and if so, (2) did defendant hold over or continue in possession after the expiration of his term?

That defendant entered into possession of the premises as tenant of plaintiff was denied. The evidence in respect thereto was in sharp conflict. The jury has resolved the question in favor of defendant, in a trial free from error.

Plaintiff argues that defendant is at least a tenant at sufferance or at will. If so, his remedy is not by summary ejectment, and the issue was not triable in this cause.

In the trial below we find

.No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 S.E.2d 712, 228 N.C. 655, 1948 N.C. LEXIS 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goins-v-mcloud-nc-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack