The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-11-08

| certain deeds and the latter under a
| grant to Wiliiam Mullis, dated 1917,
and through meSne conVeyanceS to
| che pIaintlItS. The defendant claimed
under an entry made in 1889 and a
| grant issued in 1890, and undertook
| 20 snow continuous adverse possession
| from February 1889 to the time or
| the trial in 1902. There swere many
| exceptions taken, the principal one
being the refusal of the lower court
to non-suit the plaintiff on the evil
| dence.
Held. l. Title being out of the
State when plaintiff showed evidence
of possession in 1866 and 1867 and
| again from 1889 to 1896, the defend
ant. even though he entered the lana
| in 1889 and took a grant therefor
| in 1890 and remained in possession of
| a part of the land until the trial in
1902, did not when a part of such
land was in possession of plaintiff $
co-tenant up to 1896, acquire exclusive
possession under seven years color of
title.
2. In locating the boundaries of
/ land as called for in a grant the lines
| should be run with the calls in the
| regular order from q known beginning
| and the test of reversing in the pro-
| gress of the survey should be resorted
to only when the terminus of q call
| cannot be ascertained by running for
| ward but can be fixed with certainty
by running reyersely the next succeed
ing line. Therefore. when the evidence
tended to show that large rock call
ed for in the grant is a permanent OBJ
| ject and there was no evidence to
| focate either the first or the second
marks given between the distances
| called for, and two other corners We're
| known, the charge of the Court that
if the greater weight of the evidence
| showed that the large rock on the
| plot was one of the natural objects
| in the line of the boundaries of the
grant the plaintiffs had the right 20
| reverse the call and run to the be-
| ginning corner, was proper as falling
| within the exception to the general
| rule.
8. When the only evidence of title
| offered by plaintiff was evidence. of
| possession in 1S66-67 with no other
| evidence of possession except between
| 1889 and 1896 and for the purpose Of
| showing title out of State he relied on
| a grant to theJdefendant dated De-
| cember 10, 1890; Held: That as the
right of the defendant to the land did
| not accrue until 1890 and as his grant
or. the State. was not barred. the
seven year statute (Code 400 did not
| begin to run until the date of such
grant. since which plaintiffs have fail
| ed to show seven years possession un-
| der color of title.
The Judgment as to the 80 acre tract
is affirmed; that as to the . II acre
I trct is reversed and new trial ordered
| and the costs of the Court and the
appeal are divided between the parties
c. Y. Walker, ct ais, appellant, V. w.
J. Miller. from Orange. Error.
| Civil action for the recovery of
crops, bought by appeal to the Su-
| perior Court, the judge by consent
! finding the facts respecting the owner
ship of the land upon which the
/ crops were grown, briefly as follows;
| Jas. Webb. Jr., and JOS. G. Webb
were, prior to 1898, engaged in the
| mercantile business when Jas. Webb
died, leaving all his real and personal
property to his widow and appoint
| ing JOS. C. WEBB his executor. With
| the knowledge and consent of the
widow the Surviving partner and cX-
| ecutor continued to conduct the bust
ness under the old name and style of
| Jas. Webb, Jr., and Bro, until he
/ died intestate in 1904 leaving as heirs
at law and distributes Mary Webb,
his widow, and Brown r. and j. G.
| Webb, his sons. The estate of JOS. G..
| Webb. not being settled at the death
| of his executor, Jas. Webb, Jr., ~. j.
Ruffin and H. w. Webb were appoint
| ed and duly qualified as administra-
tors of JOS. Webb, Jr., deceased. and
| I. n Webb and j. Cheshire Webb
| were appointed administrators with
| the will annexed of JOS. c. Webb, de-
ceased. Afterwards the administra-
| tors joined in notice to the debtors
| of the firm to make payment and.
| informing them that the business
| would be continued under the same
| style and management indefinitely,
| with notice that the business would
be conducted with funds belonging to
| the estate of the deceased partners.
| This action was taken with full con-
sent of all parties in interest in both
estates. Afterwards the property and
! assets of the firm were sold to H. w.
| and j. c. Webb, the old firm being
continued for the sole purpose of col
| lecting the debts and settling the bust
ness, J. Cox Webb being appointed
agent to collect the debts due the
| firm. The old firm of Jos. Webb, Jr.,
and Bro, held a judgment against
| defendant w. j. Miller, on whose
| lands d. S. Miller held a deed of trust,
| which he duly foreclosed, and on
which the crops in controversy were
| growing. At such sale j. Cox Webb
| became the purchaser, paying the
purchase price with money collected
| by him on accounts due the firm of
! which he was agent taking deed
| therefore to JOS. Webb, Jr., and Bro
| Soon afterwards the widows and chill
dren of the deceased partners execu-
ted a deed to the land to the plain
| tiffs
The court was of opinion that as
title to the land did no1 pass by
the deed from d. S. Miller to Jos,
Webb, Jr., and Bro, the plaintiffs
acquired none by the deed of Mrs.
| Webb and others and rendered judg-
ment dismissing the action, and plain
/ tiff appealed.
Held.
l. Where distributes and legatees,
with the approval Of the admlnlstra-
tors used property for their JOINT ana
common benefit in carrying on an es-
tablished business, taking its name
they, in a limited, if not an absolute
sense constituted new partnership.
2. Where property is decided 10 a
firm, or where there is no grantee
the CONVEYANCE is not void, but con-
tains only a latent ambiguity which
may be explained by parol.
3. The fact that the business had
been sold prior TO the Miller deed so