The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1914-03-10

T,Jetat Hho IS now insane. Chief
ornrn LARK states that Rev. 1851
excludes TESTING V Of thic
KIND and the questions were nranenIa
excluded. 0 PiopeIiS
The trial judge was reonastaa -
cnarSe, There are not sufficient arrs
OF ownership upon part of n}aintiff |
TO snow title by possession" and did
So aodlng the following. provided
sou II lhe fifty acre tract is not
oussieo by n deed from Carstar-
pnen TO Coltrain.' Chief Justice
clark states that the addition was
proper as there was no claim ,,n6ar
ADVERSE possession but only under
this deed. NO
Chief Justice Clark also states that
theTe being evidence that the so acre
tract was within the deed to Coltrain
.ioh 10 non suit was properly de-
hleu ana the contention that the fail
ure of the SO acre tract to bo1nd On
olner lands as described in the Iced
Is q 1atal defect, cannot be sustained
uhdef Austin v. Austin 100 n. G.. 369.
NO error is found in the verdict and
judgment for plaintiff.
BrOgden v. Gibson from F~dgecombe
IS an interesting case. The plaintiff
alleged and offered proof that he
entered into a verbal or parol agree
ment with the defendant, that the
plalntl1f, Brogden, should purchase
lots, secure bidders for them and sell
them and do all the necessary work
and that the defendant Gibson should
furnish the money for the purpose.
That after selling the lots, Gibson
should be paid pack all money ad-
vanced by him and the balance Of the
purchase price divided between them.
h plaintiff alleged hat he pur-
chased five lots in Rocky Mount, the
defendant Gibson paid for them
taking a Iced in his (GibsOn) sole
name. That later Gibson sold one Of
the lots and refused to sell the others
stating that he was going TO keep
them and refused to pay anything tc
plaintiff Brogden. Gibson the de-
PENDANT. alleged that he purchased
the lots and stated TO Brogden that
he (Gibson) would give Brogden a
commission if he sold them. Later
however, he (Gibson) decided to kee1
the lots and not sell them. The jury
found the facts for the plaintiff ant
Judgment was entered that the lot!
be sold, Gibson paid what he ha(
advanced. and the profits equal,
divided. Appeal by defendant, Glib
son.
Justice Walker writes the opinion
and states. 1.-The main contention o
the defendant is hat the agreemen
between the parties alleged by tn
plaintiff and found by the jury to b
the true one, is within h statute !
frauds, and not having been reduce
to writing, is voidable by him. BIT
the fallacy of this position is up
parent when we consider that this
an action to enforce u trust, whic
is not one for specific performance {
a contract relating to land. TIL
transaction falls clearly within til
definition Of a parol trust, as settle
by several decisions Of this court.
If Gibson had sold the lands, Bros
den could unduestionably have r.
/. covered in assumpsit, his (Brogden's
share Of the profits. BrogdeE's RICH
: can not be defeated by Gibson's n
: fusal to sell. There being no erro
{. the Judgment for the plaintiff, Bro:
+ den, is affirmed.
2 Roper Lumber Co. v. RichmOI
t Cedar Works and Dismal Swamp /
! II. is an action to recover damag
:. for trespass upon land. This ca:
= was before the court in 1853 N. c. 16
. The defendant amended its ansW'
: and claims title to n land--tl
e Whitehead tract. The plaintiff a
= that 1t had possessed the land a
yersely for seven years under col
of title. 1t was foundw as a fact tn
u the plaintiff had been seven years
: adverse possession OF the Ian al
the sole question presented to t
- court is whether the plaintiff h;
- color OF title.
i The facts seem 10 be as follow
T. Josiah Riddick and VIM. Whitehe
- owned a large tract Of land as tie
e ants in common. Riddick, who W
y q Virginian, died, leaving a will. K
l9 dicks devisees had the will probat
% and recorded in this State. The
u PENDANT alleges that the will was
Is properly probated and recorded
II this State. in 1876, a proceeding
as partition was had, between the {
.. yisecs Of Riddick and Whltehe;
whereby Whitehead was given a &c
for the land in controversy.
nesne oonveyances, the land was ct
veyed to Roper Lumber Company
nc Justice Walker for the u stat
the question now presented for
u decision is, whether the partition
- 1916 and the allotment to William
~ Whitehead and the deeds OF IN
Isl r ,,njor him are in law. &C