Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

110 N.C. 403

15 S.E 4

Ross v. . Hendrix

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 5, 1892

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1892-02-05

This was a special proceeding, begun before the Clerk and transferred to the Superior Court at Term for trial upon the issues raised in the pleadings, and tried before Graves, J., at December Term, 1889, of Guileord Superior Court. Both parties claimed the land under the same person— George K. Hendrix, deceased — who was the husband of one of the plaintiffs and the father of the other.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-02-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 1931

5 state decisions

1018921900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Shepherd, J.:

¶1 We are of opinion that there was sufficient testimony to be submitted to the jury for the purpose of establishing at least a resulting trust in the defendant Nancy Hendrix. It appears that she sold her land after her marriage, which occurred some sixteen years before the trial of this action. The sale then having been made since 1868, the proceeds arising therefrom was her separate property, *405 and these proceeds having been invested in the land in controversy by her husband, it must follow, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, that a trust resulted to her. Kirkpatrick v. Holmes, 108 N. C., 206.

¶2 We are also of opinion, that the possession of the entire tract of land for twelve years by the said Nancy after the death of her husband, accompanied as it was by acts indi-eating a claim to its exclusive ownership, was constructive notice of her equity, and that the plaintiff is affected therewith.

¶3 It is true, that if dower had been assigned in the land occupied by 'her, there would have been no constructive notice; but there was no assignment of dower, and she occupied the entire tract under the circumstances mentioned. This possession, while not adverse as between the widow and the heirs (Page v. Branch, 97 N. C., 97), so as to bar their entry, was sufficient to put a purchaser upon inquiry, and he must be deemed to have had notice of all that such an inquiry would have disclosed. Bryan v. Hodges, 107 N. C., 492; Staton v. Davenport, 95 N. C., 11.

¶4 The exception to the ruling upon the statute of limitations was not very seriously pressed by counsel. The possession of the defendant Nancy was consistent with her equitable ownership, and she only sets up the trust for the purpose' of protecting such rightful' possession. The statute of limitations does not apply to such a case. Farmer v. Daniel, 82 N. C., 152.

¶5 We think that, under the circumstances, it is proper to permit George Hendrix, the heir of defendant Nancy, who died pending the appeal, to come in and adopt her answer. The other exceptions are also without merit.

¶6 No error.

/110/nc/403 · .json · Public domain