Court Opinion

ID: 6698166
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 22:00:36.774618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:01:18.932435
License: Public Domain

Seawell, J.
It is not necessary to analyze the voluminous evidence in the record, since upon the judgment of nonsuit, our consideration is narrowed to one phase of the case.
*417Tbe evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, raises an inference which must be left to the jury that the defendant Land Bank went into the possession of the land through a contract of tenancy with Windham some time prior to its sale under the deed of trust. As the mortgagee in possession, it was the duty of the Land Bank to apply to the notes and mortgage held by it the rentals received from Windham, and it was chargeable as such mortgagee in possession for a reasonable rental to be so applied, and for the value of wood and timber removed from the premises, if any, during its occupancy. Kistler v. Development Co., 205 N. C., 755, 172 S. E., 413; Green v. Rodman, 150 N. C., 176, 111 S. E., 408.
Under the evidence in this case, we think the plaintiff had the right to have an accounting, and if it appears therefrom that there was nothing due the Land Bank at the time of the sale of the lands in controversy, and if such sale was brought about through the wrongful action of the Land Bank, she would ordinarily be entitled to redeem the land unless this has been rendered impossible through the conduct of the Land Bank. In that event, she would be entitled to such damages as she may have sustained, and which may be provable under applicable law.
The evidence does not affirmatively show that any cause of action which the plaintiff may have had against Windham accrued within the three years next preceding the institution of the suit; nor is it sufficient to justify a recovery against any defendant other than the Land Bank.
As to the Land Bank, the judgment of nonsuit is
Reversed.
As to the other defendants, it is
Affirmed.