Court Opinion

ID: 9807946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:21:51.867174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:17.353139
License: Public Domain

Walker, J.,
dissenting in part: I cannot agree to the opinion of the Court in this case so far as it affects lot No. 1. I still think that the defendants were estopped by the partition proceedings of 1815. My views, in which Justice Solee concurred, are fully stated in the report of the former appeal, 162 N. C., 165, and I will not repeat them here. The opinion of the Court, to my mind, is based upon two errors, one of law and the other of fact. ■ The error in law is the holding that the judgment in a partition proceeding does not create an estoppel as between the tenants to deny the title or ownership, and the error of fact is that the court *405assumes, contrary to the record in the proceeding of 1815, that there was no allegation that the tenants were the owners of the land, and consequently there was no adjudication as to the title; whereas an inspection of the record will disclose that such was not the case; all of which was set out by me in my former dissenting opinion.
I concur in the opinion of the Court as to lot No. 4.
Justice Hoke concurs in the dissenting opinion of Walkeb, J.