Court Opinion

ID: 9810085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:39:32.909419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:22.745248
License: Public Domain

Clark, J.,
concurring. In Crow v. Holland, 15 N. C., 417, it is held that a grant can only be set aside at the suit of the State (see The Code, Sec. 2788), or of a prior grantee (see The Code, Sec. 2786). In the present case, the Court merely holds that a grant can not be set aside at the suit of a junior grantee on the ground of fraud practiced on the State, citing Carter v. White, 101 N. C., 33. But as the plaintiff cites and relies upon State v. Bland, 123 N. C., 739, it is well to note that that case has no- bearing here. It held that since The Code, Sec. 177, “requiring all actions to be brought by the party in interest,”. The Code, Sec. 2788, authorizing the State to bring actions to annul grants applies “only to those cases in which upon the cancellation, the title to the realty would revest in the State, which is thus the party in interest,” which was the case in State v. Bevers, 86 N. C., 588, which is cited. It is further said: “If this were not so, parties contesting the validity of grants, alleged *590to be junior, could overwhelm the State with costs of litigation in wbicb it has no interest.” In that case, accordingly, it being “averred in the complaint and admitted by the demurrer that the State has no interest in the land,” but that the action was brought for the benefit of the Senior grantee, the Court'held that he, having a right to bring a direct action under The Code, Sec. 2786, “should have sought it at his own cost and charges, as required by The Code, Sec. 177,” and dismissed the action, which had been brought by the State. There is nothing therein contained which tends to support the plaintiff’s contention that a junior grantee can maintain an action to set aside a senior grant for fraud practiced on the State.
Douglas, J., concurs in result.