Neely v. Neely

79 N.C. 478
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 15, 1878·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

ByNUM, J.

As there was no evidence of an adverse holding by the defendants, and those under whom they claim, and as the plaintiffs and defendants are tenants in common of the premises in question, and as such the possession of [480] one party is the possession of the other, nothing less than a sole possession of twenty years by a co-tenant without any •demand or claim by another co-tenant to rents, profits, or possession, he being under no disability during the time^ will raise a presumption in law that such sole possession is rightful and protect it. This has been decided by numerous cases of which it is necessary only to cite two recent ones, Covington v. Stewart, 77 N. C. 148; Linker v. Benson, 67 N. C. 150. Eliminating the time of the suspension of the statute, no such possession appears or is alleged here. Plaintiffs’ brief cites all the cases.

No Error. Affirmed.

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

Neely v. Neely, 79 N.C. 478 (N.C. 1878).

79 N.C. 478 (Neely v. Neely) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Winstead v. . Woolard
28 S.E.2d 507 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1944)
Cox v. . Wright
11 S.E.2d 158 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Rhea v. Craig.
54 S.E. 408 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)
Dobbins v. Dobbins.
53 S.E. 870 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)
Bullin v. Hancock.
50 S.E. 621 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
Woodlief v. Woodlief.
48 S.E. 523 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)
West v. East Coast Cedar Co.
101 F. 615 (Fourth Circuit, 1900)
Roscoe v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.
32 S.E. 389 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1899)
Jones v. . Cohen
82 N.C. 75 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1880)
Caldwell v. . Neely
81 N.C. 114 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1879)