Case ID: nc_196/html/0258-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOSEPH B. MARTIN v. WYTH G. MARTIN.
    (Filed 14 November, 1928.)
    Appeal and Error — Review—Burden of Showing Error.
    The verdict of the jury, under correct instructions of the court, in favor of the defendant in an action to establish a resulting trust in lands, upon parol evidence, is upheld in the Supreme Court under the facts in- this case.
    Civil actioN, tried before Townsend, Special Judge, at March Special Term, 1928, of Bookingham.
    The plaintiff alleged that he and defendant entered into an agreement to purchase a certain tract of land, and that the title thereof should be taken in the name of the defendant, but that said land should be held as partnership property. ' Thereupon plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that he paid a part of the purchase money. The contention of the defendant was to the contrary.
    The issue submitted by the court was answered in favor of defendant, and from judgment upon the verdict the plaintiff appealed.
    
      W. B. Dalton for plaintiff.
    
    
      D. F. Mayberry for defendant.
    
   Per Curiam.

The gist of the action, as alleged by the plaintiff, was to establish an interest in a certain tract of land, the title to which had been taken in the name of the defendant.

Plaintiff testified as follows: “I got biin (defendant) to take it in bis name so wben we traded there would be no trouble’ about making the title good. We field halvers in tfie farm down there. That was the agreement.”

It is clear that plaintiff’s right to recover depended upon his ability to establish a resulting trust in the land. The trial judge instructed the jury correctly upon the questions of law involved in the case. The issues of fact were found in favor of the defendant and the record discloses no error warranting a new trial.

No error.