Town of Wendell v. Scarboro

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Town of Wendell v. Scarboro

196 S.E. 818, 213 N.C. 540, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 134

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 4, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 196 S.E. 818 (Town of Wendell v. Scarboro) 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

Town of Wendell v. Scarboro, 196 S.E. 818, 213 N.C. 540, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 134 (N.C. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

*541 Per Curiam.

Plaintiff instituted action to foreclose five tax sale certificates issued prior to 6 September, 1926, for taxes on described real property in Wendell for tbe years 1921 to 1925, inclusive. Tbe property bad been listed in tbe name of F. H. Scarboro, tbe then owner. However, title to said property bad vested in E. T. Scarboro (not a member of tbe same family), 8 July, 1925, by deed from tbe trustee following foreclosure sale under tbe power contained in a deed of trust executed by E. H. Scarboro and wife. Since 1925 E. T. Scarboro bas listed and paid tbe taxes on tbe property.

E. H. Scarboro died in 1928 leaving bim surviving five children and bis widow. Sbe and another qualified as administrators of bis estate. On 22 November, 1929, summons in this action, on tbe tax sale certificates, was issued, naming E. H. Scarboro and wife as tbe parties defendant, and served on Mrs. E. H. Scarboro. On 9 June, 1930, E. T. Scar-boro, by order, was made party defendant and summons and amended complaint served on bim. He filed answer, pleading, among other defenses, tbe several statutes of limitation. Under tbe statute tbe plaintiff bad until 1 December, 1929, to bring its action. A few days prior to that dead line this action was begun, but only E. H. Scarboro and wife were named defendants. At that time E. H. Scarboro bad been dead more than a year and bis widow bad no interest in tbe property. Thereafter, in June, 1930, tbe plaintiff could not by making E. T. Scar-boro a party defendant effect continuity with tbe original action against a deceased person so as to prevent tbe bar of tbe statute of limitations as to this answering defendant and bis grantee. C. S., 8037; Public Laws 1929, ch. 204; Hogsed v. Pearlman, ante, 240; Orange County v. Atkinson, 207 N. C., 593, 178 S. E., 91; Beaufort County v. Mayo, 207 N. C., 211, 176 S. E., 753.

Tbe ruling of tbe court below was correct, and tbe judgment dismissing tbe action is

Affirmed.

Sea well, J., took no part in tbe consideration or decision of this case.

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

*541 Per Curiam.

Plaintiff instituted action to foreclose five tax sale certificates issued prior to 6 September, 1926, for taxes on described real property in Wendell for tbe years 1921 to 1925, inclusive. Tbe property bad been listed in tbe name of F. H. Scarboro, tbe then owner. However, title to said property bad vested in E. T. Scarboro (not a member of tbe same family), 8 July, 1925, by deed from tbe trustee following foreclosure sale under tbe power contained in a deed of trust executed by E. H. Scarboro and wife. Since 1925 E. T. Scarboro bas listed and paid tbe taxes on tbe property.

E. H. Scarboro died in 1928 leaving bim surviving five children and bis widow. Sbe and another qualified as administrators of bis estate. On 22 November, 1929, summons in this action, on tbe tax sale certificates, was issued, naming E. H. Scarboro and wife as tbe parties defendant, and served on Mrs. E. H. Scarboro. On 9 June, 1930, E. T. Scar-boro, by order, was made party defendant and summons and amended complaint served on bim. He filed answer, pleading, among other defenses, tbe several statutes of limitation. Under tbe statute tbe plaintiff bad until 1 December, 1929, to bring its action. A few days prior to that dead line this action was begun, but only E. H. Scarboro and wife were named defendants. At that time E. H. Scarboro bad been dead more than a year and bis widow bad no interest in tbe property. Thereafter, in June, 1930, tbe plaintiff could not by making E. T. Scar-boro a party defendant effect continuity with tbe original action against a deceased person so as to prevent tbe bar of tbe statute of limitations as to this answering defendant and bis grantee. C. S., 8037; Public Laws 1929, ch. 204; Hogsed v. Pearlman, ante, 240; Orange County v. Atkinson, 207 N. C., 593, 178 S. E., 91; Beaufort County v. Mayo, 207 N. C., 211, 176 S. E., 753.

Tbe ruling of tbe court below was correct, and tbe judgment dismissing tbe action is

Affirmed.

Sea well, J., took no part in tbe consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 S.E. 818, 213 N.C. 540, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-wendell-v-scarboro-nc-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack