{ "id": 8527589, "name": "GUY E. HEFNER v. GUY STAFFORD", "name_abbreviation": "Hefner v. Stafford", "decision_date": "1983-11-01", "docket_number": "No. 8225SC1203", "first_page": "707", "last_page": "711", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "64 N.C. App. 707" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "159 S.E. 2d 327", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "329" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 N.C. 113", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574646 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/273/0113-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 S.E. 142", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1889, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 N.C. 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650704 ], "year": 1889, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/104/0112-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 430", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "431" }, { "page": "432" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "14 N.C. App. 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8546876 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "69" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/14/0067-01" ] }, { "cite": "307 S.E. 2d 578", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "64 N.C. App. 462", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527045 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/64/0462-01" ] }, { "cite": "179 S.E. 2d 396", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 153", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559876 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0153-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 443, "char_count": 8023, "ocr_confidence": 0.813, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.181100842601303e-08, "percentile": 0.4299756472288539 }, "sha256": "4f7c635620b05dc6c4749897e52f06784feed156f22f75c6937888f89089fc45", "simhash": "1:a52bd05515e94cce", "word_count": 1417 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:03:16.623003+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Becton and Johnson concur." ], "parties": [ "GUY E. HEFNER v. GUY STAFFORD" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRASWELL, Judge.\nIn an action for wrongful timber cutting under G.S. 1-539.1, the trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiffs evidence. The ground for the dismissal was that plaintiff had failed to prove a prima facie case of title to the land in controversy. Plaintiff appeals.\nThe only issue before us to decide is whether the defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict was properly granted. The scope of our review is to determine whether the evidence which plaintiff did introduce was sufficient to require submission of the case to the jury. Kelly v. Harvester Co., 278 N.C. 153, 179 S.E. 2d 396 (1971); Jones v. Allred, 64 N.C. App. 462, 307 S.E. 2d 578 (1983); G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a).\nTo focus on the issue we quote from the judgment of the trial court:\n[T]he Defendant moved for a Directed Verdict under Rule 50(a) of the N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure upon the grounds, inter alia, that Plaintiff had failed to offer sufficient evidence to establish, prima facie, Plaintiffs title to the premises from which the trees were cut; and after consideration of the evidence and in sole reliance upon the opinion in Woodard v. Marshall, 14 N.C. App. 67, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence to establish, prima facie, Plaintiffs title to the premises from which the trees were cut, either by offering a connected chain of title or grant from the State to himself or by adverse possession, and that Defendant\u2019s Motion for a Directed Verdict in his favor against the Plaintiff should be granted.\nThe timber and trees in question were alleged to be hardwood shade trees, and miscellaneous dogwood and sourwood trees on an undeveloped lot in a residential subdivision on Lake Hickory. The plaintiffs evidence established that certain described timber and trees had been cut and tended to show that the cutting was done by the defendant.\nThe parties stipulated through their counsel that a deed dated 30 April 1958 conveyed certain properties located in Catawba County to Guy E. Hefner, and \u201cthat [the] deed may be introduced into evidence for whatever it says.\u201d The deed became plaintiffs Exhibit No. 1. It shows that among the several tracts conveyed was a fourth tract, described by metes and bounds, and \u201cbeing Lot No. 11 in Block \u2018C\u2019 of the Hefner Estate Property, Snow Creek Cove, as shown on a plat thereof . . . dated November 4, 1957.\u201d\nGuy E. Hefner, the plaintiff, became the first witness. He testified, without any objection, to the following:\nQ. Do you own any land, Mr. Hefner?\nA. I do.\nQ. Where is that land located?\nA. Snow Creek Cove, where this particular tract lies.\nQ. Is that lot Eleven Block C?\nA. Right.\nQ. Where is that? Did that property come from the estate of your father?\nA. Yes sir.\nQ. Is that near the lake?\nA. It\u2019s on the Snow Creek Lake Hickory. Snow Creek area.\n* * * *\nQ. How long have you had this land in your name, Mr. Hefner?\nA. It\u2019s been sometime, I believe in 1950.\nQ. By 1958; is that correct?\nA. Somewhere along there.\n* # * *\nQ. Now did you have a conversation with him or did he tell you why he cut trees on your property?\nA. He said the lady he contracted the other lots from there told him that his lots run all the way around on a circle, all the way around to where it was a lot cleared off.\nQ. Is there a lot cleared off?\nA. It\u2019s a lot cleared off.\n* # # *\nQ. And your property runs up to that.\nA. No. 11 lies between nine and ten there, and No. 12 is cleared off.\nQ. Your lot is No. 11, which joins No. 12.\nA. Right.\nDuring the recross examination of Mr. Hefner, after testimony about his discovery that some trees had been cut in November and December 1978, and after Mr. Hefner had answered \u201cI own that lot\u201d of property in the area, Mr. Hefner was asked his \u201copinion as to the value of that lot.\u201d Further cross-examination revealed a valuation of $13,345.00.\nIt is basic law that for a plaintiff to recover for unlawful cutting of timber under G.S. 1-539.1 that he must establish his ownership of the land from which the timber was cut. Woodard v. Marshall, 14 N.C. App. 67, 69, 187 S.E. 2d 430, 431 (1972). We now review the probative force of the evidence recited above, and review applicable case law to see if it shows ownership in Guy E. Hefner, the plaintiff.\nWoodard, in discussing a plaintiffs burden of proof in establishing title, repeated the six methods promulgated by our Supreme Court in Mobley v. Griffin, 104 N.C. 112, 10 S.E. 142 (1889). Woodard, supra, at 115, 187 S.E. 2d at 432. Two of the methods listed, such as (1) proving a connected chain of title or grant from the state to himself, and (2) proving adverse possession, are cited by the trial judge in our present case to demonstrate how within the law the plaintiffs evidence fails to show any proof. However, the plaintiff before us relies upon Freeman v. City of Charlotte, 273 N.C. 113, 159 S.E. 2d 327 (1968), which also cites Mobley. We agree that the plaintiff before us, like the plaintiff in Freeman, has failed to prove title by any of the methods approved in Mobley. However, here, just as in Freeman, the respective plaintiffs testified without objection that they were the owners of the tract in question. Therefore, \u201c[t]he admissibility of this testimony not having been challenged, it must be treated as before the jury with all its probative force.\u201d Id. at 115, 159 S.E. 2d at 329. As the court did in Freeman, we hold that \u201c[t]his evidence was sufficient to warrant the submission of the . . . issue and to support the jury\u2019s affirmative answer thereto.\u201d Id.\nAt the close of the plaintiffs evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the evidence shows by deed duly recorded on 22 September 1958 that the plaintiff is the owner of Lot No. 11 in Block \u201cC\u201d of the Hefner Estate Property in Snow Creek Cove in Catawba County. The oral evidence shows that the plaintiff has owned Lot No. 11, Block \u201cC\u201d in Snow Creek Cove of his father\u2019s estate in the Lake Hickory area since around 1958, that Lot No. 11 is where the trees were cut, and that as the owner he was cross-examined as to his monetary valuation of his lot.\nThe facts before us fail to show any genuine challenge on the issue of ownership. Although the defendant was called as an adverse witness, his testimony did not contest the plaintiffs ownership of the land. The plaintiffs evidence made out a prima facie case of ownership through oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence. The plaintiff met his burden of proof.\nWe hold that the trial court erred when it granted the defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict. The case must be remanded for a new trial.\nNew trial.\nJudges Becton and Johnson concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "BRASWELL, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Sigmon, Sigmon and Isenhower by Jesse C. Sigmon, Jr. and Randall Isenhower for plaintiff appellant.", "Cagle and Houck by Joe N. Cagle and William J. Houck for defendant appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "GUY E. HEFNER v. GUY STAFFORD\nNo. 8225SC1203\n(Filed 1 November 1983)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 59; Trespass to Try Title \u00a7 4\u2014 wrongful timber cutting-evidence of title to land uncontradicted \u2014 directed verdict for defendant improper\nIn an action for wrongful timber cutting under G.S. 1-539.1, the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict for defendant on the basis that plaintiff had failed to establish title in the land where the evidence showed by deed duly recorded that plaintiff was the owner of lot number eleven in block \u201cC\u201d of the Hefner estate property in Snow Creek Cove in Catawba County; that the oral evidence showed that the plaintiff had owned lot number eleven of his father\u2019s estate since around 1958; that lot number eleven was where the trees were cut; and that as the owner he was cross-examined as to the monetary valuation of his lot. Although defendant was called as an adverse witness, his testimony did not contest the plaintiffs ownership of the land.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Grist, Judge. Judgment entered 13 July 1982 in the Superior Court, CATAWBA County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 September 1983.\nSigmon, Sigmon and Isenhower by Jesse C. Sigmon, Jr. and Randall Isenhower for plaintiff appellant.\nCagle and Houck by Joe N. Cagle and William J. Houck for defendant appellee." }, "file_name": "0707-01", "first_page_order": 739, "last_page_order": 743 }