Lee v. . Johnson

22 S.E.2d 230, 222 N.C. 161, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 54
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 14, 1942·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant Johnson, ostensible owner of a fee simple title, having conveyed the locus in quo to an innocent purchaser for value, plaintiffs’ only remedy is by action for damages for the wrongful alienation and conversion of their land by the defendant Johnson. This action was instituted more than five years after the wrongful conversion. The ruling of the court below is sustained by Davis v. Doggett, 212 N. C., 589, 194 S. E., 288. See also Ferguson v. Blanchard, 220 N. C., 1, 16 S. E. (2d), 414, and Massengill v. Oliver, 221 N. C., 132.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

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

Lee v. . Johnson, 22 S.E.2d 230, 222 N.C. 161, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 54 (N.C. 1942).

22 S.E.2d 230 (Lee v. . Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ricks v. . Batchelor
33 S.E.2d 68 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)