Hatley v. . Hammer

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hatley v. . Hammer

142 S.E. 225, 195 N.C. 865, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 238

DecidedMarch 28, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 142 S.E. 225 (Hatley v. . Hammer) 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

Hatley v. . Hammer, 142 S.E. 225, 195 N.C. 865, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 238 (N.C. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

On 12 April, 1884,. Joseph Riddle and bis wife executed a mortgage to John Williams conveying tbe land in controversy. Tbe mortgage was registered 7 May, 1884, and some time after Christmas, 1889, tbe land was sold under tbe power conferred by tbe mortgagors. J. J. Hatley became tbe bigbest bidder, but Jobn Williams took tbe land and went into possession. There was evidence for tbe plaintiffs tending to show continuous possession by themselves and those under *866 whom they claim title until 1897, and afterwards in 1901 and 1902. There was other evidence also; but on behalf of the defendants there was at least some evidence in contradiction, the probative force of which was a matter for the jury. Under these circumstances a directed verdict was improper, and for this reason the defendants are entitled to a

New trial.

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

Pee Curiam.

On 12 April, 1884,. Joseph Riddle and bis wife executed a mortgage to John Williams conveying tbe land in controversy. Tbe mortgage was registered 7 May, 1884, and some time after Christmas, 1889, tbe land was sold under tbe power conferred by tbe mortgagors. J. J. Hatley became tbe bigbest bidder, but Jobn Williams took tbe land and went into possession. There was evidence for tbe plaintiffs tending to show continuous possession by themselves and those under *866 whom they claim title until 1897, and afterwards in 1901 and 1902. There was other evidence also; but on behalf of the defendants there was at least some evidence in contradiction, the probative force of which was a matter for the jury. Under these circumstances a directed verdict was improper, and for this reason the defendants are entitled to a

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 S.E. 225, 195 N.C. 865, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatley-v-hammer-nc-1928.