Court Opinion

ID: 9808311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:33:30.32412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:10:51.937528
License: Public Domain

Clark, C. J.,
concurs in the opinion of the Court for the reason given, and for the further reason:
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is the owner and entitled to the possession of the land in question, without setting out his chain of title. The defendant answered, denying the allegations of the complaint and without setting out any chain of title. It was therefore open to the defendant to attack the validity of any deed offered by the plaintiff without having pleaded its invalidity. For a stronger reason it was open to the plaintiff to'* attack the validity of any deed offered by the defendant, without having pleaded its invalidity. Indeed, he could not foresee what deeds the defendant would offer.
When the defendant offered the deed from the trustee in a power of sale, under a mortgage which fell due 1 January, 1897, and it appeared that the mortgage had been foreclosed under said power of sale 6 June, 1910, the plaintiff was entitled to rely upon that evidence to assert the invalidity of the deed executed by the trustee. Menzel v. Minton, 132 N. C., 660, was corrected by Revisal, 104.4, which makes such power of sale inoperative after the lapse of ten years.
If there had been payments which would have taken such deed out of the statute, the burden was upon the defendant to show such fact. The jdaintiff could not have pleaded the statute of limitations to a mortgage and power of sale which were not set out in the answer. Besides, a reply is not required except when the answer sets up a counterclaim. When the answer contains matter of defense merely, or by way of avoidance, the plaintiff is not required to reply unless so ordered by the court. Revisal, 485.
Hoke, J„ concurs in concurring opinion.