Gurganus v. Hedgepeth

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Gurganus v. Hedgepeth

265 S.E.2d 922, 46 N.C. App. 831, 1980 N.C. App. LEXIS 2931

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 20, 1980

Docket792SC1026

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 265 S.E.2d 922 (Gurganus v. Hedgepeth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gurganus v. Hedgepeth, 265 S.E.2d 922, 46 N.C. App. 831, 1980 N.C. App. LEXIS 2931 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

ARNOLD, Judge.

G.S. 1-76(1) provides that where an action is for “[recovery of real property, or of an estate or interest therein, or for the determination in any form of such right or interest,” the action must be tried in the county in which the property is situated. In Sample v. Towe Motor Company, Inc., 23 N.C. App. 742, 209 S.E. 2d 524 (1974), we found that this statute applied to facts much the same as those now before us. There, plaintiff lessors, alleging that defendant had breached the lease, notified defendant to vacate the premises and asked the court to order the lease terminated. We said: “The lease . . . vested defendant with ‘an estate or interest’ in real property. The action seeks to terminate that interest and will require the Court to determine the respective rights of the parties with respect to the leasehold interest.” Id. at 743, 209 S.E. 2d 525. We do not find the present case distinguishable merely because the plaintiffs in this action are the lessees rather than the lessors. The thrust of plaintiffs’ action is to have the court declare that they still hold a leasehold interest in the property, and such an action falls within G.S. 1-76.

The cases relied upon by plaintiffs are distinguishable upon their facts. Rose’s Stores, Inc. v. Tarrytown Center, Inc., 270 N.C. 201, 154 S.E. 2d 320 (1967), involved the construction of a building near plaintiff’s store, in alleged violation of plaintiff’s lease, and the court noted that the plaintiff did not seek a judgment that would affect an interest in land. Thompson v. Horrell, 272 N.C. 503, 158 S.E. 2d 633 (1968), was an action for damages for breach of a contract to construct a house, as was Wise v. Isenhour, 9 N.C. App. 237, 175 S.E. 2d 772 (1970). Neither of these involved a determination relating to any estate or interest in land.

Defendant is entitled to a change of venue as a matter of right. The order of the trial court is

*833 Reversed.

Judges Hedrick and Erwin concur.

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

ARNOLD, Judge.

G.S. 1-76(1) provides that where an action is for “[recovery of real property, or of an estate or interest therein, or for the determination in any form of such right or interest,” the action must be tried in the county in which the property is situated. In Sample v. Towe Motor Company, Inc., 23 N.C. App. 742, 209 S.E. 2d 524 (1974), we found that this statute applied to facts much the same as those now before us. There, plaintiff lessors, alleging that defendant had breached the lease, notified defendant to vacate the premises and asked the court to order the lease terminated. We said: “The lease . . . vested defendant with ‘an estate or interest’ in real property. The action seeks to terminate that interest and will require the Court to determine the respective rights of the parties with respect to the leasehold interest.” Id. at 743, 209 S.E. 2d 525. We do not find the present case distinguishable merely because the plaintiffs in this action are the lessees rather than the lessors. The thrust of plaintiffs’ action is to have the court declare that they still hold a leasehold interest in the property, and such an action falls within G.S. 1-76.

The cases relied upon by plaintiffs are distinguishable upon their facts. Rose’s Stores, Inc. v. Tarrytown Center, Inc., 270 N.C. 201, 154 S.E. 2d 320 (1967), involved the construction of a building near plaintiff’s store, in alleged violation of plaintiff’s lease, and the court noted that the plaintiff did not seek a judgment that would affect an interest in land. Thompson v. Horrell, 272 N.C. 503, 158 S.E. 2d 633 (1968), was an action for damages for breach of a contract to construct a house, as was Wise v. Isenhour, 9 N.C. App. 237, 175 S.E. 2d 772 (1970). Neither of these involved a determination relating to any estate or interest in land.

Defendant is entitled to a change of venue as a matter of right. The order of the trial court is

*833 Reversed.

Judges Hedrick and Erwin concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 S.E.2d 922, 46 N.C. App. 831, 1980 N.C. App. LEXIS 2931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gurganus-v-hedgepeth-ncctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack