Case Name: C. H. REXFORD et al. v. JOHN H. MARTIN et al.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1911-12-23
Citations: 157 N.C. 577
Docket Number: 
Parties: C. H. REXFORD et al. v. JOHN H. MARTIN et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 157
Pages: 577–577

Head Matter:
C. H. REXFORD et al. v. JOHN H. MARTIN et al.
(Filed 23 December, 1911.)
Appeal and Error.
The questions in this case of color of title, adverse possession, and competency of evidence: Hold, to have been decided correctly in the court below, and no error is found:
Appeal from Cline, J., at March Term, 1911, of SwaiN.
Plaintiffs appealed.
W. L. Taylor, Bryson & Blacli, and Frye & Frye for plaán-tiff.
John W. Hinsdale for defendant.

Opinion:
Pee Oueiam:.
This case has received a careful examination, and we are of the opinion that no substantial or reversible error, if error at all, was committed during the trial. It is plain that the defendants bad good color of title, and the case turned largely upon their possession, that is, whether it was sufficiently adverse, notorious, continuous, etc., to ripen their color into a good and valid title, and we entertain no doubt upon this branch of the case. The evidence as to who claimed the land was competent and relevant to show the beginning of the possession, its notoriety and continuity, and if any of the questions or answers were incompetent, as contended by plaintiffs, we do not see that any error in this respect was prejudicial. In view of the facts, it must certainly be considered as harmless. We do not intend even to intimate that there was error. The substantial merits are clearly with the defendants, and the jury, under an exceedingly fair and proper charge, have found the issue of fact against the plaintiffs, and their verdict, in our judgment, should not be disturbed.
No error.