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

states that me court decides that the
plaintiff had color OF title under the
tnssne c-onVeyances from VIM. B
" Whitehead and there was no error in
me verdict and judgment Tor plain
tiff.
HIonnt '. johnson. from Pasquo-
tank, IL an action 10 recover land.
Inc plaintiff introduced evidence .
ho"lng title TO this land was in Sellm
sutton, and hat by his Will. the land
IN controversy Vas devised TO his
daughter, Lizzie. for life ana then To
the plaintiffs. This land was sold for
taxes and bought by the ancestor in
ute OF the defendants. The daueh-
ter, Lizzie, who a a life estate i
still living.
Chief Justice Clark states thar The
contention OF the plaintiffs that they
nave a vested remainder and there
lore can recover possession can not
be sustained. Every action must be
prosecuted in the Rame of the real
provided, Rev. 400. The plaintiffs
here do not come within any excep-
tlon otherwise provided 3 they
could not recover possession unless
the life tenancy had expired. They
nave no present right Of possession
and can not recover it
School Trustees '. Hinton. from
o1dooSohh, pICStilS the ~ducSl1OI
whether Chapter lao, Private Laws
1907, amended by Chapter 1853, Pri-
vate Laws of 1909, is constitutional in
that it allows h condemnation Of
land for public schools.
Justice Allen cites with approval
the dicta in Railroad V. Davis, 10 n. G..
456, where it is said, The right Of
the public to private property, TO the
extent that the use of it is needful
and advantageous to the public, must,
We think, be universally acknOWl-
edged He states that public schools
are recognized and required by the
Constitution and these statutes permit
ting land to be condemned for pub
tic schools are constitutional.
Campbell V. Miller. from Beaufort
is an action principally TO settle the
dividing line between the plaintiff and
defendant, there being no real dis
pute about the title to the lands. The
jury found the facts in favor of the
plaintiff.
, The facts seem to be these: DR.
! Bullock owned all this land. In 189:
l he cut off part, known as the Chester
: Winfield tract and conveyed it to Mrs
1 VENT, later on cross-examination
adjoining tract to the plaintiff Camp
bell, which deed called for the Win
field line. On December 8, 1904, Mrs
4 Went sold the the defendant Miller
I On May s, 1911, less than Z year
after the defendant Miller purchase
g the land, the plaintiff Campbell Dega-
e this suit.
AS to the disputed part Of the lan(
q McGoWan, an agent testified, that h
had held possession Of it for Mr.
Wenta( later on cross examination
IS saying, when I said I had possessio
h Of the land for Mrs. Wentz, 7 mea
II that I went on it and cut some WOO
e which [ hauled off" Chief Justit
le Clark states, This cannot be said
d be possession but amounts simply
a t~feSpaSS unless Mrs. Wentz ha
title to the land"
3 Chief Justice Clark states fuIthe
y 1.-The Court properly refused TO chars
is IF the defendant and those und
E. whom he claims have had no posse
+, sion of the and in dispute for a pc:
8 iod of seven Year under known Al
visible boundaries and said posse
n sion was continuous and the land w;
r, Used in such IN as it was the
H. capable Of to answer the first issl
es in favor Of the defendant, for tt
Sc prayer is defective in that it onli
!. the words under color Of title II
defendant had no color Of title II Il
ne line is located as the jury found
Seven years possession IS not suf
Gent"
d. The defendant contended that Il
or plaintiff pointed out the line at Il
1t time the defendant purchased III
in therefore the plaintiff having misl'
nd the defendant was estopped to set
the true boundary. Chief JUST
ad Clark states, THE issue as to this W
found by the jury in favor of t
s: plaintiff and the charge OF the Cou
was as favorable TO the defendant
n he could ask, for he did not purcha
as from or claim under the plaintiff a
d. there was no cOntelnpOraneOuS III
ed ming and marking." There was
le- error in the Judgment for the plai
lot tiff.
in
for MILLING THE MOSQUITOES