Hargrave v. McNinch

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hargrave v. McNinch

127 S.E. 926, 189 N.C. 839, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 424

DecidedMay 6, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 127 S.E. 926 (Hargrave v. McNinch) 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

Hargrave v. McNinch, 127 S.E. 926, 189 N.C. 839, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 424 (N.C. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

Tbis is an action to remove a cloud from tbe plaintiffs’ title to a lot in tbe city of Charlotte. In 1914 tbe defendant executed a deed of trust conveying real estate in Ward 4 to secure certain indebtedness mentioned in said deed and afterward made default in payment. Tbe trustees sold tbe land in 1918 to tbe Home Realty Company, subsequently known as tbe American Title and Guaranty Company, and executed to tbe purchaser a deed therefor. Suit was then brought to dispossess tbe defendant, and judgment was rendered against him. In 1919 a part of tbe land was conveyed to W. E. Buchanan, and in 1923 tbe remainder thereof was conveyed to C. W. Johnson. Thereafter Johnson conveyed to tbe plaintiffs that portion of tbe land which lies between tbe lot conveyed to Buchanan and the lot known as tbe Wriston property. Tbe plaintiffs are in possession, and they allege that tbe defendant has wrongfully set up a claim of title to their property.

Tbe defendant filed an answer outlining bis former transactions with tbe American Trust Company and alleging that tbis company or tbe American Title and Guaranty Company, subsidiary thereto, bad received tbe property in question under a trust agreement which bad not been perfprmed, and by virtue of which tbe Title and Guaranty Company was without authority to transfer the title.

Record and parol evidence was introduced, and at tbe conclusion of tbe evidence tbe jury were instructed, under tbe admissions made by counsel, that if they found tbe facts to be as shown in tbe records and testified to by tbe witnesses they should answer tbe first issue “Yes” and tbe second “No.”

We are satisfied from an examination of tbe record that there is no error in tbis instruction. In fact, upon bis own showing tbe defendant *840 has failed to establish a valid defense to the plaintiffs’ cause of action. A discussion of the exceptions would serve no useful purpose, and for this reason is omitted.

No error.

ClarksoN and Varser, J.J., not sitting.

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

Pee Cueiam.

Tbis is an action to remove a cloud from tbe plaintiffs’ title to a lot in tbe city of Charlotte. In 1914 tbe defendant executed a deed of trust conveying real estate in Ward 4 to secure certain indebtedness mentioned in said deed and afterward made default in payment. Tbe trustees sold tbe land in 1918 to tbe Home Realty Company, subsequently known as tbe American Title and Guaranty Company, and executed to tbe purchaser a deed therefor. Suit was then brought to dispossess tbe defendant, and judgment was rendered against him. In 1919 a part of tbe land was conveyed to W. E. Buchanan, and in 1923 tbe remainder thereof was conveyed to C. W. Johnson. Thereafter Johnson conveyed to tbe plaintiffs that portion of tbe land which lies between tbe lot conveyed to Buchanan and the lot known as tbe Wriston property. Tbe plaintiffs are in possession, and they allege that tbe defendant has wrongfully set up a claim of title to their property.

Tbe defendant filed an answer outlining bis former transactions with tbe American Trust Company and alleging that tbis company or tbe American Title and Guaranty Company, subsidiary thereto, bad received tbe property in question under a trust agreement which bad not been perfprmed, and by virtue of which tbe Title and Guaranty Company was without authority to transfer the title.

Record and parol evidence was introduced, and at tbe conclusion of tbe evidence tbe jury were instructed, under tbe admissions made by counsel, that if they found tbe facts to be as shown in tbe records and testified to by tbe witnesses they should answer tbe first issue “Yes” and tbe second “No.”

We are satisfied from an examination of tbe record that there is no error in tbis instruction. In fact, upon bis own showing tbe defendant *840 has failed to establish a valid defense to the plaintiffs’ cause of action. A discussion of the exceptions would serve no useful purpose, and for this reason is omitted.

No error.

ClarksoN and Varser, J.J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 S.E. 926, 189 N.C. 839, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hargrave-v-mcninch-nc-1925.