The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1902-10-21
a3Il4aIiB

~ hC DuDtIIOT |
court permitting registration of such deed ;
ooe7 hot validate the probate.
Wchty years adverse possession of
iand py himself or those under whom he
Claims, VIII give title in fee. to the nos
as against all persons not under
'lSapiity. Such possession must not ONLY |
ne adverse, but must also be open. no
torlous and continuous. under known and
visible boundaries.
FLANNER Y. BUTLER. Rotb sidos ~
pealed- From New Hanover.
In plaintiffs appeal: Where land r,as
purchased IN the wife's name with none,
ARISING from notes which the husband
procured to be executed" 10 her and
WIN money deposited to her credit IN
bank by the husband 10 defraud his credi- i
'oIs, ana the wife was afterwards ii
'orced from her husband, it was held. in
an action by the husband TO have The
wife declared trustee of the land fo.
MS benefit; that the 'smanipulatiOns" of
the husband constituted a gift Of The
money to the wife, and the land having
fctn purchased with her money. thar-
was no resulting trust in favor CO the
husband. Affirmed.
In defendants appeal: Where tho
Wlfe's father purchased land for her bus
pand with the husbands money and had
the Gced made to the wife without the
husbands knowledge or consen, ane
ccntl@ry to his wish. but the husband
made no further complaint after being
informed by the wife's father that 1T
was al the same" that what a mans
wife had was hor husbands"
Held that the wife will be declared
trdstee of the land for the husbands
beneht. Thurber V. LaRocue. 1O5 n. c..
sol, distinguished.
Where, in such case. neither husband
nor wife was in actual possession of the
land Iought with the husbands money.
the roperJy being rented by the husband
and the rents collected by MIN until he
was divorced from the wife. it was held
that the statute of Limitations did not
run against the husband. Faggart V.
Bost, 122 Y. G. 517; Norton V. McDevit,
122 Y. c. 1915. Affirmed.
ARNOLD, appellant V. DENNIS. From
Harnett. New trial.
Where there is not sufficient statement
Of facts to enable the court to pass upon
the matters involved, q new trial will be
awarded. CArnold v. Hardy, at this
term, is governed by this ruling and was
similarly disposed off,
HOUSE, appellant V. S. A. L. RAILWAY.
From Franklin. New trial.
Where testimony is conflicting and the
facts of the case are in dispute, it is the
duty of the trial Judge to leave the ques-
ton of fact to the jury. under proper in
| structions-the burden of proving con-
tributory negligence in this case, resting
on the defendant.
The court cannot direct a verdict In
favor of a party upon whom rests the
burden Of proof.
NORFLEET, appellant V. BAKER. From
BERTHE. Affirmed.
The question in this case is. Does the
lien cover the crops made upon the en-
tire tract OF land, being those made by
II himself, and those made by his tenants,
or does it cover only those made by II?
And the court s%ustains the ruling below
that it only covered the crops made by
n himself.
1t was further held that It was clear
from the deed that the advances were
made to H ito be by him expended in the
cultivation of a crop upon the following
described lands. and any other land that
he may cultivate" The parties intended
by the instrument to encounter the par
ticular crop made by H.
PAGE V. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF VIRGINIA., appellant. From Har-
nett. No error
The possession of the insurance policy
by plaintiff is prima facie evidence tsub-
iect to proof to the contrary that the
first premium has been paid. Il \. {.
$50: % n. c. 163. And the possession OF
the policy authorized plaintiff to take out
| administration in this State. 119 n. C.
$50, 126 n. G. G2S.
Defendant demurred to the evidence,
~, AVID no evidence
! being offered by defendant, the court
properly told the jury if they believed
that of plaintiff, to respond Yes" to the
issue as to whether the policy was II
force at the death of the insured.
Defendant insisted that the answer no.
being put in evidence, its admission coulc
not be considered: held, whether plead
ings raised an issue or not, is a matter
Of law for the court and the court De
low properly ruled that the answer ad'
nlitted the execution Of the policy.
THOMPSON V. EXUM. appellant. From
Wayne. No error.
Plaintiff was a cropper on land or de
PENDANT under a special contract DURING
the year 1900, and claimed part OF tn
cotton seed. which claim was disputed
by defendant.
, Defendant testified that it was the IN
variable rule in renting land to stlpula1
[ that no cotton seed are to be carrle'
? away by tenants, and " so sald 10 PLAIN
| tiff" etc. To corroborate defendant, NJ
!, counsel proposed to ask a witness 10
1 nIaintiff. on cross examination, VIVA
? was your contract of renting IN l9oo
and it was not allowed. Held, no error
evidence of contract with others canho
no admitted to affect the particular con
tract between these parties.
: The rule permitting evidence OF the Gus
tom or usage OF a place does not eA'en
: Ia business customs of individuals.
GARRETT V. HAMILL ct al, appellah's
From Halifax. New trial.
pIairtiff seeks to recover Of defendant
., amount alleged to be due for good
cold and the defendant admlnlstfatrl
cavs that if any promise was ever mac