The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-10-04

liam Hollister; also that from 1855,
up to the death of his sister, Caroline
Markell, Russell had made no effort
to recover said property because lie
was told by his sister not to do so.
that she had sold a life estate but her
daughters would have the property
after her death. This testimony was
excluded and plaintiff excepted. The
defendants relied on the statute of
limitations.
Held: 1. There was nothing in the
testimony as to a mere contract to
turn over the land to Hollister prior
to the execution of the deed by his
daughter to tend show that either
er Mrs. Wall or her grantees held I'M
der Mrs. Markell; nor was Mrs. Mar
kel's statement that she had sold
her life estate competent against the
defendant, it being indefinite as 10
whom she sold or when and. If made
after the entry by Bishop, clearly in
competent.
2. The duties imposed to convey the
legal title when directed by Mrs.
Markell and to surrender the prop
erty, etc, upon her death are sucn
as to prevent the trust from being one
of the class which is executed by the
statute: and, in the absence of deed
or paper writing by the parties under
whom the defendants claim their po-
session was adverse to Russell. who
held under the trustee, and, there
fore, to the cestui que trustent.
Samson Weeks vs.. j. 4. Wilkins TT
al. appellant. John ID. Kerr. for an
Dellant: L. X. Cooper. for appellee.
Brown j. Revised.
Action for the recovery of land.
Plaintiff was awarded one half inter
est and defendants appealed. The
nj int ola nn6pr a deed executed
in 1899 by all the children OF Esther
Weeks. In 1863 the land was decided
to Britain A. Edwards by Esther
Weeks and seven of her children
among whom was the plaintiff. One
child did not sign nor was the prlVy
examination of three married daugh-
tiers taken. In the subsequent convey
ance to plaintiff the Husbands of the
married women did not sign nor was
privy examination taken:
Held: 1. When one signs deed
purporting to pass a title in fee and
bearing upon its face evidence that
the entire estate and title In the land
was intended to be conveyed even IN
the absence of technical covenants OF
title. the grantor is afterwards es-
topped from denying that the gran
tee became seized of the estate the
deed purported to vest in him.
-
ped from claiming under subse-
quent acquired title as against the
grantee claiming of the first deed ano
those claiming under him.
3. Although plaintiff was minor
at the time of signing, the original
deed was as to him voidable but no.
void and his failure to disaffirm rem
dered it valid and binding as to him
HickSon Lumber Co. ct nj. vs.. W. D.
II Inn
maud: for appellants j. ID. Kerr
and Busbee g. Busbee for appcllecs
Bruwn.t H.. affirmed.
The Norfolk National Bank loaned
! Boftin a large sum of money taking
as collateral security certain notes ana
mortgages of the Gay Lumber Com
pany Loftin failing to pay his debt
and the Lumber Company failing to
pay its notes, the Bank employee
counsel and proceeded to collect the
collaterals and claimed to be reim-
bursed from the assigned estate OF
Loftn the reasonable and proper
costs and expenses incurred in such
collection. The court below directed
| the receivers to pay the same and
| Loftin's assigneeS appealed.
Held. When a creditor takes note
of third person as collateral security
| for his debt he is bound to use due
diligence in the collection of the col
| lateral is responsible for his debtor
| for any loss occasioned by his lacheS
and is entitled therefore to receive
all reasonable cost and expenses in
Cured in the protection and collection
of the collateral to the same extent as
any other trustee, especially when, as
in this case, the instrument assigning
| the collateral conferred authority &c
collect the same and apply the net
proceeds to the credit of the debt sc
secured.
| Turner VS. Badger. 126 n. c. 800
cited distinguished and approved.
Stone & Co., Appellants. v. CIyd'
Steamship Company: Louis Good
man for Appellant: Rountree 4
] Carr for Appellee. Hokc, j. AT
| firmed.
Action for damages. Plaintiff. mer
chants in Wilmington, had consigned
to them through defendant. a com
mon carrier plying ships \etween Bal
| timore and Wilmington. various boXe
of crackers and biscuit At the ter
| mination of its line i'm Wilmington tn
| defendant owns a wharf. rooted, bu
otherwise unenclosed upon which
discharges freight for its customers
| the defendant makes no charge TO
| the use of the wharf or platform
| the goods be removed by conslgnee
before Monday following the arriva
| of its boat on Tuesday of the wee
| previous 1t is the custom of tn
| cusomers of defendant in Wilmingto
to remove consignments from tn
wharf at their earliest convenience
| the defendant having no other mean
| of storing the same. which fact
| known to shippers and receivers c
| freight Plaintiffs consignment G
crackers arrived and was put on tn
wharf on Tuesday February =. l9o'
and they were notified by defendant
on Wednesday plaintiff had Pai
freight on goods and removed a par
of same; on the night of the lOth
| wind and snow storm prevailed an
the snow and rain blew under IN
shed and upon the goods and dan
| aged them to the extent of s2s.5o, ft
i which plaintiffs brought action. Ihei
was judgment for defendant on al