Court Opinion

ID: 9811418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:19:29.321094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:30.275177
License: Public Domain

EaiRClotii, C.. J.,
(concurring in tbe result). Tbe plaintiffs obtained and docketed judgments in 1879 and 1880 against W. A. McCoy, and tbis action is to bave a commissioner appointed to sell tbe homestead land of said McCoy to satisfy said judgments. It is admitted that McCoy died insolvent in 1892, and that bis youngest child was over twenty-one years of age when tbis action commenced. Several issues were submitted without objection, and the case on appeal states that a jury trial was waived; tbe plaintiffs and defendants agreeing that tbe Court might find tbe facts and answer the issues. Several years before bis death said McCoy and wife sold bis homestead to another, under whom tbe defendant Munday claims title. Each party introduced evidence, and bis Honor answered tbe issues,and rendered judgment in favor of tbe plaintiffs; i. that said land be sold to pay plaintiffs’ judgments, binder a judgment against said McCoy, prior in date to plaintiff’s, an execution thereon came to tbe hands of an acting deputy sheriff of Macon County, who summoned and swore a board of appraisers of tbe homestead and exemption of said McCoy, whose report Avas made and filed December 10, 1878, Avith tbe judgment and levy made on tbe excess, signed, “B. P. Jacobs, Deputy Sheriff.” Tbe oath of office of said deputy was introduced by plaintiffs. Said homestead was described by distinct boundaries, and tbe homesteader and tbe defendants bave ■fever since been in possession of said homestead premises. Tbe defendants objected to tbe introduction in evidence of tbe foregoing homestead return, because: “(1) Tbe law does not recognize such an officer as deputy sheriff. (2) That a *446deputy sheriff bas no authority to administer an oath. (Objections overruled. Exception.)” This exception is the main contention in the case, to which the argument was chiefly directed, as well as the duties and liabilities of a sheriff, and his deputy inter se and to third parties. We are relieved from considering these two exceptions, on reason and authority. The homestead, as a matter of fact, was laid off by well-defined lines, whether regularly or irregularly, and no objection was made to it by exception, or appeal. The debtor accepted the assignment and has enjoyed the benefit thereof for more than twenty years, and the creditors have submitted to it for the same time. Both parties are thereby estopped from denying an accomplished fact, so long recognized by them. Spoon v. Reid, 78 N. C., 244; Whitehead v. Spivey, 103 N. c., 66, Herm. Estop., 949, 952. If either party is dissatisfied with the allotment, Code, sec. 519, et seq., affords ample remedy. If these remedies are not availed of, the allotment can hot be attacked collaterally by the debtor, or anyone claiming under him. His remedy is Code, sec. 519. Welch v. Welch, 101 N. C., 565; Burton v. Spiers, 87 N. C., 87. When the creditor and debtor have for a long time acquiesced in the allotment as it was made, and availed themselves of their rights and benefits thereunder, they are precluded from denying the validity of the allotment. Cobb v. Halyburton, 92 N. C., 652; Ladd v. Byrd, 113 N. C., 467.
Another exception made in the argument is that the Judge erred in not finding the facts. When facts are found at the trial, they are conclusive, and can not be reviewed by this Court, with few exceptions. If the answers to the issues failed to present all material facts, it was incumbent on the* defendant to show by his exception what error was committed. This can only be done by averring that there was no evidence to support the finding, that competent, or .incompe*447tent, evidence was rejected, or admitted, and that tbe Court refused, or failed, after request made in apt time, to pass upon a material issue, or question of fact, when there was evidence tending to support the same. Fertilizer Co. v. Reams, 105 N. C., 283.
The defendants also relied on seven years’ adverse possession under color of title. That can not help the defendants, as statutes of limitation are suspended and will not run against any judgment due hy the owner of a homestead, or homestead, interest during the existence of such homestead. Acts 1885, chap. 359; Formeyduval v. Rockwell, 117 N. C., 320. In this case the homesteader died in 1892, and his youngest child is of full age and still living. Four years after plaintiffs’ judgments were docketed, said McCoy and wife, Mary A. McCoy, conveyed their interest in said homestead lot to a trustee to secure creditors, and at said trustee’s sale said Mary A. McCoy was the purchaser, and under her the defendants claim title. This conveyance to the trustee and his sale to Mrs. McCoy were subject to the lien of plaintiffs, acquired by their docketed judgments. No* error.
Affirmed.