Ejectment tried at Spring Term, 1882, of Rutherford Superior Court, before Qudger, J. The complaint asserts and the answer denies that the plaintiff is owner in fee, and entitled to the possession óf the land described and-withheld by the defendant; and thereupon an issue was submitted to the jury, with an inquiry of damages dependent upon the finding, in these words: Is plaintiff the owner and entitled to the possession of the laud mentioned in the complaint?
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1888
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶1
We concur in the action of the court in awarding a new trial, and the sufficiency of the reasons for so doing. Although some doubt was expressed upon the point by Rodman, J., in
Johnson
v.
Nevill,
65 N. C., 677, an
*300
early decision made after the introduction of the new system of pleading under the Code, it has been since settled that a matter put in issue and material to the result is conclusively determined by the verdict and judgment, where land is sought to be recovered, as it would be if the recovery of personal property was the object. Here, both the pleadings and the issue involve the determination of the title and consequent right of possession in the plaintiff, and this is distinctly and definitely decided in the verdict. It could not therefore be drawn in question between the parties again by the defendant, and becomes
res adjndicata
of record.
