Orr v. . English

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Orr v. . English

158 S.E. 926, 200 N.C. 806, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 461

DecidedMay 13, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 158 S.E. 926 (Orr v. . English) 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

Orr v. . English, 158 S.E. 926, 200 N.C. 806, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 461 (N.C. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Peb Cubiam.

This is an action to recover the possession of land, the parties claiming from a common source. The plaintiff claims title under a sheriff’s deed made pursuant to an execution issued on a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against Gracie E. Jordan and others, *807 docketed in Transylvania County on 25 March, 1929. The defendant claims under a deed of trust executed by Gracie E. Jordan on 14 September, 1928, filed for registration 17 September, 1928, and a conveyance to himself from the trustee. The plaintiff admitted in open court that if the deed of trust, which constitutes a link in the defendant’s chain of title, is not a forgery, then the defendant has the superior title of record. As appears from the verdict the issue relating to forgery was answered in favor of the defendant. This was the crucial point of controversy.

We have examined all the exceptions of the appellant, but find no error in the record which entitles the plaintiff to a new trial.

No error.

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

Peb Cubiam.

This is an action to recover the possession of land, the parties claiming from a common source. The plaintiff claims title under a sheriff’s deed made pursuant to an execution issued on a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against Gracie E. Jordan and others, *807 docketed in Transylvania County on 25 March, 1929. The defendant claims under a deed of trust executed by Gracie E. Jordan on 14 September, 1928, filed for registration 17 September, 1928, and a conveyance to himself from the trustee. The plaintiff admitted in open court that if the deed of trust, which constitutes a link in the defendant’s chain of title, is not a forgery, then the defendant has the superior title of record. As appears from the verdict the issue relating to forgery was answered in favor of the defendant. This was the crucial point of controversy.

We have examined all the exceptions of the appellant, but find no error in the record which entitles the plaintiff to a new trial.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E. 926, 200 N.C. 806, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orr-v-english-nc-1931.