Case Name: WILLIAM M. NESBY v. CLARA NESBY, FLOYD T. HALL, Guardian Ad Litem of WADE NESBY (Insane), CHARLIE NESBY and Wife, WILLIE FOWLER NESBY, BUTLER NESBY, OSCAR O. EFIRD, Trustee, and WINSTON-SALEM BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1943-01-08
Citations: 222 N.C. 759
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAM M. NESBY v. CLARA NESBY, FLOYD T. HALL, Guardian Ad Litem of WADE NESBY (Insane), CHARLIE NESBY and Wife, WILLIE FOWLER NESBY, BUTLER NESBY, OSCAR O. EFIRD, Trustee, and WINSTON-SALEM BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 222
Pages: 759–760

Head Matter:
WILLIAM M. NESBY v. CLARA NESBY, FLOYD T. HALL, Guardian Ad Litem of WADE NESBY (Insane), CHARLIE NESBY and Wife, WILLIE FOWLER NESBY, BUTLER NESBY, OSCAR O. EFIRD, Trustee, and WINSTON-SALEM BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION.
(Filed 8 January, 1943.)
Appeal by defendants from Blachstock, Special Judge, at April Term, 1942, of Forsyth.
No error.
Uosea V. Price for plaintiff, appellee.
A. B. Cummings for defendants, appellants.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff brought this action to have himself declared the beneficial owner of certain lands, the purchase price of which was paid by him, and which are alleged to have been held in trust for him by Addie Nesby, now deceased, and of which the legal title had become vested in the defendants as heirs at law. He sought to have the defendants convey the lands to him in termination of the trust.
Upon tbe bearing in tbis Court, it developed, tbat tbe statute of limitations bad been pleaded and tbat tbe jury answered tbat issue favorable to tbe plaintiff, altbougb it appears in tbe record of tbe judgment tbat tbe issue was answered otherwise. However, botb parties admitted tbat tbe recital of tbe answer to tbat issue in tbe judgment on tbis point was erroneous. If tbe error occurs in tbe original judgment as signed and docketed, it may be corrected on motion.
There was sufficient evidence to take tbe case to tbe jury, and we perceive no error in tbe trial justifying interference with tbe result. Since there is no new principle of law involved, no formal opinion is necessary.
We find
No error.