The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1895-11-02
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Digest of the Opinions Handed Down
During the Past Week.

III. Tucker VS.. L. B. Williams appel
lant), from Pitt county. Opinion by
Avery, j.
/. Where the word ''heirs" appears in
a deed in connection with the name OF
the grantee, or as qualifying the desig-
nation of the grantee as the party OF the
second part, it may be transferred from
any part of the ms rument in constru-
ing it, and made to serve the purpose of
passing an estate in fee simple.
Q. Where in the premises, the deed de-
fines the estate of the grantee as "a free
hold and good possessions during his
natural life and his heirs and their as
signs" and in the habendum the opera
tive words are s'to him the said A, dur
ing the term of his natural life and his
heir forever" Held, that the rule in
Shelley's case applies.
Affirmed.
D. S. Bennett (appellan0, VS. B. F.
Shelton, from Halifax county. Opin-
ion by Clark, J.
A appeal from an interlocutory order
making additional parties, before the
final termination of the action, is pre-
mature.
Dismissed
Frank Hansley (petitioner) VS.. James
vile IL Washington Railroad Company,
from Beaufort county. Opinion by
Fnrches. J.
1.-The fact that defendants road is poor
corp ration, struggling for existence and
expanding all its earnings in an ineffect-
nal effort to keep its road in good condi-
lion, cannot be considered by this court.
q. Where, from the poor condition of
the defendants road bed and engines, it
vas unable to carry the plaintiff to
Washington on his return trip ticket
from Washington to GAINESVILLE; Held,
that while the plaintiff is entitled to
compensatory damages for the breach of
the contract, there was no such wanton
or wilful negligence on the part of the
defendant By failure to keep its road and
engines in good repair as 70 warrant
punitive damages.
Petition dismissed
L. n Brooks (petitloners vs. GAINESVILLE
and Washington Railroad Company,
from Beaufort county. Opinion by
Furches, j.
The facts in this case are substantially
the same AS in Hansley's case, and for
like reasons the petition is dismissed.
Dismissed.
State ex rel VI. FL. Harrington appel
ant VS. r. VT. King, from Pit
county. Opinion by Faircloth, @. j.
/. Where the plaintiff was duly elected
sheriff. but the County Commissioners
Of insuficiency and thereupon declared
the Office vacant and filled it by electing
the defendant; Held that in an action TO
try the title to the Office, evidence as to the
sufieiency of the bond is incompetent, as
the decision of the Commissioners is final
and cannot be reviewed by the courts.
.. The Court can compel an official to
act in a matter of discretion, but it can
not compel him to exercise that discre-
ton in specific manner. Affirmed.
State ex rel " E Daniel ct al. Zap
pellants) vs.. j. NJ. Grizzard ct al, from
Halifax county. Opinion by Furches, J.
In an action against Register Of
Deeds and his bondsmen on his official
bond for the failure of the Register of
Deeds TO index a mortgage executed by
one a, whereby the plaintiff was de-
ceiyed in believing that the land of A
Was unincumbered, and consequently
took second mortgage on the same
land and lost the amount so loaned;
Held:
/. That, as indexing the records is a
duty required of the Register of Deeds
by express statute, he is liable on his
official bond for any loss TO the plaintiff
resulting from such negligence
O. The defendant is not relieved from
such liability because his official bond
WAS executed and he was indicted into
Office before the Act requiring Register
of Deeds to index their records was
passed rs he remained in Office under
said bond some time after the passage
of said act, and should have indexed
s4id N rtgage during that time.
.. The statute of limitations began to
ran from the time Of the breach Of the
bond, l. g while the defendant remained
in Office; and that being more than six
sears before the commencement Of this
action, the plaintiffs claim is barred.
Ne error.
Clark, j. did not sit.
j. v. Shackleford and wife (appellants)
We. I'll. L. Station, from Edgecombe
sounty. Opinion by Montgomery, ]
1. Where the plaintiff Kate s. Shack
leford lost the amount of judgment in
her favor through the failure Of the de-
PENDANT, then Clerk of Edgeeombe Court,
30 properly cross index the same; Held,
in an action of tort to recover the
amount of the judgment out of the de-
fendant mot an action on his official
bond), the three years statute applies.
.. The liability of the defendant be-
gan from the day he failed to properly
index the judgment and continued I'M
til he ceased to be Clerk of the Court.
8 Had the action been brought on the
defendants official bond, the six years
statute would have applied. No error.