The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1896-01-30
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

James Hawkins VS.. N. NJ. Pepper zap
pellan); from Stokes county. Opln-
ION by Avery, j.:
Where the grantor conveyed the
mineral interests in certain lands for
a nominal consideration upon condi-
ton that the grantee should make an
examination of tie land and pay him
a ROYALTY on the minerals, if any were
discovered, and that the grantor
should have full power to convey the
said interest on payment to the grantor
of $500 and one-haH net proceeds of
such sale; Held, that the rights of the
grantee were forfeited by his failure
for the eight years, to open mines, or
prepare such mineral interest for sale.
?. IN such case it is necessary for
the grantor to make re-entry.
Affirmed.
j. w. Neal vs. Floyd L. Nelson appel
lant); from Stokes county. Opinion
by Avery, j.;
The purchaser at an execution sale,
the return to which described the land,
gave the name of the purchaser and
showed the payment of the purchase
price. acquires such color of title as
will, by adverse possession. ripen into
Il perfect one.
Affirmed.
J. l., Lockhart (appelant) VS.. Solomon
Bear; from New Hanover county.
Opinion by Furches, j.:
Under the Constitution. Art. X, sec.
], eXeInpting $500 of personal property
from all process for the enforcement of
debt. the debtor is entieled to such
exemption before the same is allotted
to him; Hence, where the defendant,
knowing the plaintiff to be worth less
than $500, had him arrested on a writ
of arrest and bail, in order to compel
the payment of an alleged debt; Held,
to be an abuse of the process of the
court, in which it is not necessary to
show probable cause or the termina-
ton OF the former action.
Error.
Clark, j., dissenting
John X. Hendricks ct al vs.. Philip Del
linger (appellant) from CASTOR Co
Opinion by Avery, j
/. The fact that witness testified
that a deed was not delivered on the
day of its date, does not preclude the
party offering him from relying ON the
presumption to the contrary
2. The suficiency of evidence offered
10 rebuff the presumption that the
deed was delivered on the day of its
date is for the jury.
3. In an action of ejectment, where
plaintiff introduced testimony tending
to show grants from the State and
mesne conveyances connecting them
with such grants, as well as possession
under cover of title for several years;
Held, that the question of the plain
tiff's right to recover was properly sub
mitted to the jury.
4. \ party cannot object TO instruc-
tions as being too general, where he
did not request more specific ones.
Affirmed.
j. NJ. Green (appellant) vs.. John
Burgess, from Cleveland Go. Opinion
by Montgomery, J.
Where the guardian of lunatic
gave bond for the prosecution Of a
suit on behalf of his ward, which suit
terminated adversely to the ward:
Held, that the guardian is not entitled
TO bring an action, under the Code
section 2093, to have such costs repaid
him out Of the wards estate, but can
commence such action only after the
good faith and propriety of the action
on behalf of the ward has been passed
mon nv the clark az the court nv
L., ~ Ia.+4rs ~ e.,,ard;a,,ol;y, -
s,ed
Affirmed
National Bank of 4sbeKille (aune3I-
ant1 20 I bradley 81 ii from
n,,noa,al,a county anin;on ~
Glarlr I
/ The holder OF draft must oiyc
reasonable notice ia the drawer and
indorser The insolvency of the
drawce doce not excrse the holder for