Mitchell County NcArchives Court.....LeGrande Gregg, T. A. Love V. 1895
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Connie Ardrey n/a January 11, 2010, 8:36 am

Source: Nc Reports
Written: 1895

T. A. Love v. LeGrande Gregg
September Term, 1895

1. Where, in the trial an action to recover land, the controversy was as to a 
certain portion of the tract, and a deed was offered in evidence which did not 
refer to the land in question, it was proper to exclude it as it was 
immaterial.

2. Where, in the trial of an action to recover land, the controversy was as to 
a certain portion only of a tract claimed by plaintiff, it was not error to 
refuse to submit an issue relating to land other than that in question.

3. Where a single and uncontradicted witness testifies to a fact on a trial, 
it is not error in a trial Judge to instruct the jury, if they believe the 
witness, to find according to his testimony.

Civil Action for the recovery of land, tried before Timberlake, J., at Spring 
Term, 1895, of Mitchell Superior Court. The facts appear in the opinion of 
Chief Justice Faircloth. There was a verdict for the defendant and plaintiff 
appealed from the judgment thereon.

Mr. E. J. Justice, for defendant (appellant)
No counsel, contra

[NC Supreme Court]
The plaintiff sues for possession of three tracts of land and the defendant 
denies his title and wrongful possession in himself. On the trial below and in 
this Court the parties without objection used a map on which the lands were 
marked out. One tract was designated as E. F. H. J., with straight and 
parallel lines, inside of which was a 50-acre tract with straight and 
parallel "red lines," corners marked 1, 2, 3, 4. The trial settled down on the 
title to the land within the "red lines." The plaintiff offered his evidence 
and rested. The defendants showed a grant from the State and mesne conveyances 
for certain lands, and proved open, continuous, notorious and adverse 
possession of the lands within the "red lines" from 1850 to the present time, 
which land was within the limits of the grant. It was proved by Noah Webb that 
Tyre Webb and those claiming under him had been in such possession under color 
of title since 1850 of the land within the "red lines" and there was no 
evidence conflicting with Noah Webb's evidence, but some confirming the same. 

The parties failing to tender any issues, his Honor after the evidence was 
closed submitted an issue: Whether the possession of the defendants in 
the "red line" was wrongful, being the only possession shown by the plaintiff. 
The court then charged the jury that if the plaintiff had located the land as 
contended by him, he would be entitled to recover unless the defendants and 
those under whom they claimed had ripened title in themselves by possession, 
and that if the jury believed Noah Webb, and if Tyre Webb had been in open 
adverse possession under color of title within the red lines for seven years, 
then the plaintiff could not recover. There was a verdict and judgment for the 
defendant.

The plaintiff excepted to the refusal of the court to admit a copy of a deed 
offered in evidence, which had not been probated. The copy was immaterial, as 
it did not refer to the land in the red lines, and the exception is overruled.

The second exception, that the court failed to submit a separate issue as to 
the location of plaintiff's land, is overruled because the controversy was 
exclusively as to the land with the "red lines."

The third exception was to the charge that, if the jury believed Noah Webb, 
the plaintiff could not recover. This is also overruled because it is not 
error to charge the jury that if they believed a single uncontradicted witness 
the case is made out, and where there is no conflict of evidence the Judge 
should direct the verdict to be entered, if the jury believe it. This is no 
expression of opinion on the evidence.

Affirmed.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/mitchell/court/legrande1285wl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.poppet.org/ncfiles/

File size: 4.3 Kb