Hood v. . Dunn

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hood v. . Dunn

144 S.E. 924, 196 N.C. 106, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 294

DecidedOctober 3, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 144 S.E. 924 (Hood v. . Dunn) 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

Hood v. . Dunn, 144 S.E. 924, 196 N.C. 106, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 294 (N.C. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

CoNNOR, J.

There was no error on the trial of this action in the Superior Court, with respect to the first and second issues submitted to the jury. The judgment that the tax deed from W. B. Coleman, city clerk and tax collector of the city of Kinston, N. C., to defendant, Charles F.’Dunn, dated. 10 June, 1927, and recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Lenoir County, be canceled on the record and marked null and void, by the clerk of the Superior Court of Lenoir County, is affirmed.

However, there was error with respect to the third issue. No evidence appears in the case on appeal from which the jury could find that plaintiff is entitled to recover of defendant the sum of $111.00, for rents collected by him for the land described in the complaint. Defendant’s assignment of error based upon his exception to the instruction of the court to the jury upon the third issue must be sustained. On this issue plaintiff is entitled to recover of defendant only the amount collected by defendant as rent for said land. With respect to the third issue, there must be a

New trial.

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

CoNNOR, J.

There was no error on the trial of this action in the Superior Court, with respect to the first and second issues submitted to the jury. The judgment that the tax deed from W. B. Coleman, city clerk and tax collector of the city of Kinston, N. C., to defendant, Charles F.’Dunn, dated. 10 June, 1927, and recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Lenoir County, be canceled on the record and marked null and void, by the clerk of the Superior Court of Lenoir County, is affirmed.

However, there was error with respect to the third issue. No evidence appears in the case on appeal from which the jury could find that plaintiff is entitled to recover of defendant the sum of $111.00, for rents collected by him for the land described in the complaint. Defendant’s assignment of error based upon his exception to the instruction of the court to the jury upon the third issue must be sustained. On this issue plaintiff is entitled to recover of defendant only the amount collected by defendant as rent for said land. With respect to the third issue, there must be a

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E. 924, 196 N.C. 106, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hood-v-dunn-nc-1928.