Scarborough v. Constructors Supply Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Scarborough v. Constructors Supply Co.

93 S.E.2d 151, 244 N.C. 285, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 396

DecidedJune 6, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 93 S.E.2d 151 (Scarborough v. Constructors Supply Co.) 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

Scarborough v. Constructors Supply Co., 93 S.E.2d 151, 244 N.C. 285, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 396 (N.C. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff instituted this action to recover possession of two certain lots of land in the town of Carrboro. The first lot was described in the complaint as being in size 175 feet by 120 feet; and the second lot as being 50 feet by 200 feet. The two lots do not adjoin. It was alleged that the defendants were in wrongful possession. Plaintiff and defendants claim under a common source of title. The verdict established that plaintiff was owner and entitled to possession of the first lot, but not of the second lot. The only assignment of error pressed by appellant was the denial by the trial judge of the motion for judgment of nonsuit.

From an examination of the record we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the plaintiff’s claim to the first lot and that the description in his deed was sufficiently definite to permit parol evidence to identify the land. Appellant’s claim of title by adverse possession under color was not sustained.

In the trial we find

No error.

Johnson, J., not sitting.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff instituted this action to recover possession of two certain lots of land in the town of Carrboro. The first lot was described in the complaint as being in size 175 feet by 120 feet; and the second lot as being 50 feet by 200 feet. The two lots do not adjoin. It was alleged that the defendants were in wrongful possession. Plaintiff and defendants claim under a common source of title. The verdict established that plaintiff was owner and entitled to possession of the first lot, but not of the second lot. The only assignment of error pressed by appellant was the denial by the trial judge of the motion for judgment of nonsuit.

From an examination of the record we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the plaintiff’s claim to the first lot and that the description in his deed was sufficiently definite to permit parol evidence to identify the land. Appellant’s claim of title by adverse possession under color was not sustained.

In the trial we find

No error.

Johnson, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.E.2d 151, 244 N.C. 285, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scarborough-v-constructors-supply-co-nc-1956.