Pasquotank County NcArchives Court.....T. H. Shepard Et Al, Richmond Cedar Works V. 1921
************************************************
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 12, 2010, 8:48 am

Source: Nc Reports
Written: 1921

Richmond Cedar Works v. T. H. Shepard et al
Spring Term, 1921

1. Where a grantee in a deed necessary to establish plaintiff's chain of title 
has died before delivery of the deed, it is necessary for his heirs at law to 
successfully claim an equitable estate in the lands covered by the deed, to 
establish payment by their ancestor by sufficient evidence, and in the absence 
of a finding thereon, it cannot be so declared as a matter of law.

2. Under the provisions of ch. 137, sec. 70, Public Laws of 1887, it is 
required that a purchaser at the sheriff's sale of land for taxes show, by 
affidavit, a compliance with the provisions of the statute, and present it to 
the one authorized by law to execute the tax deed, and by such officer 
delivered to the register of deeds for entry of record, which must be by 
evidence outside the deed, and there being no presumption under section 74 of 
said chapter that this has been done, in the absence of such proof, the 
purchaser acquires no title.

3. Sections 60, 70, and 71 of the acts of 1887, relating specifically to 
matters and things required to be done by the purchaser at a tax sale, to 
perfect his title to the lands, are omitted by the act of 1889, while sec. 74 
of the former act, relating to presumptions, is expressly brought forward with 
practically no modifications, and hence a tax deed made under the provisions 
of the act of 1889 is valid without proof of the affidavit, etc., requied by 
the act of 1887.

4. A sheriff's deed to land sold for the nonpayment of taxes lying within his 
own and an adjoining county is valid only as to so much of the land as lies 
within his own county, and of no effect beyond its boundary.

5. Where the plaintiff claims lands under a deed from the State Board of 
Education executed in 1904, and mesne conveyances, and it appears that the 
State had granted it to others in 1784 and 1792, his title will fail, for the 
deed from the State Board of Education has no legal effect when State grants 
covering the same lands are shown to have been issued prior to 1825. Weston v. 
Lumber Co., 162 NC, 165, cited as controlling.

Appeal from Calvery, J., at November Term, 1920, of Pasquotank. This action 
was brought under sec. 1589 of the Revisal, now sec. 1743, Consolidated 
Statutes, and involves the ownership of three tracts of land situate in the 
counties of Pasquotank, Perquimans, and Gates. The case is submitted on facts 
agreed, from which it appears plaintiff claims title under three independent 
sources, as follows:

1. The first originates with four grants, issued 27 October 1784, to Jonathan 
Herring, and with which plaintiff seeks to connect himself by mesne 
conveyances.

Under this claim, two deeds, necessary links in plaintiff's chain of title, 
are attacked by the defendants as invalid; one a deed of date 6 September, 
1853, from Ehringhaus, clerk and master, to Joseph Pritchard, purporting to 
have been executed under the authority of a decree in a special proceeding to 
sell said lands for partition, instituted by William B. Shepard, and the heirs 
of Ann Pettigrew at Spring Term, 1850, of Pasquotank County Court of Equity; 
the other a certain paper-writing, dated 6 March, 1854, purporting to be a 
deed from James Taylor, administrator of Joseph Pritchard, to Matchett Taylor.

It is admitted that Joseph Pritchard died prior to the date of execution of 
the clerk and master's deed, but plaintiff contends that if said deed be void 
for this reason, the heirs of Joseph Pritchard would be vested with a 
equitable estate upon proof of payment of the purchase price bid at the sale. 
To establish such payment, which is no admitted, plaintiff relies upon the 
record, evidence tending to show that the lands were ordered to be sold for 
$1,200 on credit, but the acknowledgment recited in said deed is "four hundred 
dollars to me in hand secured to be paid at the time of the said sale by him 
the said Joseph Pritchard."

2. Plaintiff's second claim is founded upon four tax deeds, purporting to have 
been executed by the sheriffs of Pasquotank County for unpaid taxes due upon 
said lands for the years 1887, 1888, and 1889. These deeds are attacked by the 
defendants; and, there being no evidence ultra on the record, their validity 
must be determined by the presumptions of their recitals as construed under 
that acts regulating the sale of lands for nonpayment of taxes for said years.

It is admitted that the records of Pasquotank County fail to disclose any 
affidavit from the purchaser, or any one on its behalf, made at the time of, 
prior to, the execution of the paper-writings purporting to be deeds from the 
sheriff of Pasquotank County to the John L. Roper Lumber Company, purchaser at 
the tax sale, and plaintiff's grantor.

3. The plaintiff's third source is derived from an alleged deed of date 24 
October, 1904, executed by the State Board of Education of North Carolina to 
George W. Roper, but is is admitted that on 27 December, 1792, a grant for the 
lands in controversy was issued to John Hamilton, whose title, by mesne 
conveyances, passed to William Shepard.

It is stipulated that if upon the facts agreed the court is of opinion, as a 
matter of law, the plaintiff is the owner of the lands in controversy, or any 
part thereof, and has the right to maintain this action, then judgment shall 
be entered accordingly, declaring the plaintiff to be the owner and entitled 
to the possession of said lands, or part thereof; otherwise, judgment to be 
entered declaring the defendants, T. H. Shepard, Mrs. William Graham, and Mrs. 
Louis McConnell, the owners and entitled to the possession of said lands, or 
such part thereof as plaintiff may fail to recover.

His Honor, being of opinion that plaintiff's only valid source of title was 
derived from the tax deeds, entered judgment in its favor for that portion of 
the lands in controversy lying wholly within the boundaries of Pasquotank 
County, and adjudged the defendants to be the owners of that portion of said 
lands lying outside the limits of said county.

Plaintiff and defendants excepted, and appealed.

Thompson & Wilson for plaintiff
Meekins & McMullan for defendants

[NC Supreme Court]
Stacy, J.
Let judgment be entered accordingly. Each side will pay its own cost incurred 
on this appeal.

On both appeals, judgment modified and affirmed.

[See court case for Judge Stacy's complete findings]

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/pasquotank/court/thshepar1288wl.txt

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

File size: 7.0 Kb