Case ID: nc_189/html/0839-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Cueiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LAURA ROSS HARGRAVE and ELDORA ROSS v. S. S. McNINCH.
    (Filed 6 May, 1925.)
    Appeal by defendant from Sha/w, J., at November Term, 1924, of MeckxeNbueg, upon the following verdict:
    1. Are the plaintiffs the owners in fee of the lot described in the complaint? Answer: Yes.
    2. Has the defendant any interest in said lot? Answer: No.
    
      B. W. Spencer, Tillett & Guthrie and 0■ W. Tillett, Jr., for plaintiffs.
    
    
      J. F. Flowers for defendant.
    
   Pee Cueiam.

Tbis is an action to remove a cloud from tbe plaintiffs’ title to a lot in tbe city of Charlotte. In 1914 tbe defendant executed a deed of trust conveying real estate in Ward 4 to secure certain indebtedness mentioned in said deed and afterward made default in payment. Tbe trustees sold tbe land in 1918 to tbe Home Realty Company, subsequently known as tbe American Title and Guaranty Company, and executed to tbe purchaser a deed therefor. Suit was then brought to dispossess tbe defendant, and judgment was rendered against him. In 1919 a part of tbe land was conveyed to W. E. Buchanan, and in 1923 tbe remainder thereof was conveyed to C. W. Johnson. Thereafter Johnson conveyed to tbe plaintiffs that portion of tbe land which lies between tbe lot conveyed to Buchanan and the lot known as tbe Wriston property. Tbe plaintiffs are in possession, and they allege that tbe defendant has wrongfully set up a claim of title to their property.

Tbe defendant filed an answer outlining bis former transactions with tbe American Trust Company and alleging that tbis company or tbe American Title and Guaranty Company, subsidiary thereto, bad received tbe property in question under a trust agreement which bad not been perfprmed, and by virtue of which tbe Title and Guaranty Company was without authority to transfer the title.

Record and parol evidence was introduced, and at tbe conclusion of tbe evidence tbe jury were instructed, under tbe admissions made by counsel, that if they found tbe facts to be as shown in tbe records and testified to by tbe witnesses they should answer tbe first issue “Yes” and tbe second “No.”

We are satisfied from an examination of tbe record that there is no error in tbis instruction. In fact, upon bis own showing tbe defendant has failed to establish a valid defense to the plaintiffs’ cause of action. A discussion of the exceptions would serve no useful purpose, and for this reason is omitted.

No error.

ClarksoN and Varser, J.J., not sitting.