Court Opinion

ID: 9810392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:49:07.108635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:54.023624
License: Public Domain

Davis, J.
(dissenting). I think the ruling of his Honor below was correct, and do not concur in the opinion reversing it.
The right of the plaintiff to recover, both in the case stated and in this Court, was put upon the ground that the statute of presumptions had been rebutted by his offer to pay and the refusal of the defendant to accept payment, and when, as the case states, “it was submitted (admitted) by the plaintiff that he made no offer to redeem after the first of. January, 1870, up to the bringing this action,” I think his Plonor was correct in holding that the statute was not rebutted.
It is conceded that the present action is governed by ch. 05, §19, of the Revised Code. That section is as follows: “The presumption of payment, or abandonment of the right of redemption of mortgages and of other equitable interests, shall arise within ten jmars after the forfeiture of said mortgage; or last payment on the same, or the right of action shall have accrued on any equitable interest or claim, under the like rules as aforesaid.”
The forfeiture was more than ten years before the action was brought, the last payment wasmore than ten years before the action was brought, and the right of action had accrued more than ten years before the action was brought. The language of the statute seems to me plain, and to leave nothing to construe*111tion. “The law adjudges the possession to be constructively with the title. * * * When there is no actual occupation shown the law carries the possession to the real title.” Williams v. Wallace, 78 N. C., 354. “ The constructive possession was in the mortgagee.” Parker v. Banks, 79 N. C., 480. In the absence of actual possession the title draws to it the possession. Deming v. Gainey, 95 N. C., 528.
It will be conceded that, in the present case, the legal title was in the defendant, and I have been unable to find any •case in our Reports (and we are considering our own statute), in which it has been held, that the fact that no one was in actual possession rebutted the statute, and I cannot see how it can be so held, without disregarding its language. The statute of presumptions now gives place to the statute of limitations,’and the action must be brought “within ten years after the right of action accrued.” Where the mortgagee has been in possession (the statute does not say actual possession) under §152, subsec. 4, of The Code, and if, where no one is in the actual possession, the legal title does not draw to it the possession, as I think it does, then it clearly comes under §156 of The Code, and the action must “be commenced within ten years after the cause of action shall have accrued,” and I can see no legislative intimation in conflict .with the opinion above expressed; and as the language of the statute seems to me free from doubt, I feel constrained to dissent.