{ "id": 8547550, "name": "SPOONER'S CREEK LAND CORPORATION v. ROMA STYRON and Wife, CATHERINE STYRON", "name_abbreviation": "Spooner's Creek Land Corp. v. Styron", "decision_date": "1969-12-17", "docket_number": "No. 693SC398", "first_page": "25", "last_page": "29", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "7 N.C. App. 25" } ], "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": "109 S.E. 6", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 N.C. 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655863 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/182/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 S.E. 2d 639", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "234 N.C. 463", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623503 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/234/0463-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 S.E. 2d 413", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "247 N.C. 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627639 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/247/0516-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 S.E. 2d 800", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "243 N.C. 60", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8620870 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/243/0060-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 S.E. 2d 344", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "221 N.C. 426", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628034 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/221/0426-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 S.E. 2d 498", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 622", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607008 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0622-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 S.E. 2d 474", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "249 N.C. 409", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616227 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/249/0409-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 S.E. 2d 708", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564209 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0401-01" ] }, { "cite": "135 S.E. 2d 30", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "261 N.C. 414", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573855 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/261/0414-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 S.E. 2d 850", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "216 N.C. 295", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8598782 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/216/0295-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 S.E. 2d 491", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "244 N.C. 512", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2219499 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/244/0512-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 432, "char_count": 9142, "ocr_confidence": 0.568, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.843611070292368e-07, "percentile": 0.9323837026791909 }, "sha256": "5ba8a8a881f7810fb3f6e191d2c9e351ea9c79177aa3f8845e1425648da7961f", "simhash": "1:3b600631141a4dc0", "word_count": 1587 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:45:53.911218+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "BROCK, J., concurs.", "Britt, J., dissents." ], "parties": [ "SPOONER\u2019S CREEK LAND CORPORATION v. ROMA STYRON and Wife, CATHERINE STYRON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Vaughn, J.\nThe sufficiency of a deed to convey title can be adjudicated by the submission of a controversy without action under G.S. 1-250; however, all persons having an interest in the controversy must be parties to the end that they may be concluded by the judgment and the controversy be finally adjudicated as in the case of an action. Peel v. Moore, 244 N.C. 512, 94 S.E. 2d 491; Realty Corp. v. Koon, 216 N.C. 295, 4 S.E. 2d 850.\nThe principle is well settled that where lots are sold and conveyed by reference to a map or plat which represents a division of a tract of land into streets, lots, parks and playgrounds, a purchaser of a lot or lots acquires the right to have the streets, parks and playgrounds kept open for his reasonable use. In a strict sense it is not a dedication, for a dedication must be made to the public and not to part of the public. It is a right in the nature of an easement appurtenant. Whether it be called an easement or a dedication, the right of the lot owners to the use of the streets, parks and playgrounds may not be extinguished or diminished except by agreement or estoppel. This is true because the existence of the right was an inducement to and a part of the consideration for the purchase of the lots. Realty Co. v. Hobbs, 261 N.C. 414, 135 S.E. 2d 30.\nThe agreed statement of facts in this case discloses that \u201cother parties have purchased lots within Spooner\u2019s Creek Harbor, Inc., Section 1, with reference to the aforesaid map.\u201d Although these purchasers clearly have an interest in the controversy, they are not parties to this controversy without action. It is axiomatic that judgment rendered by a court against a citizen affecting his vested rights in an action or proceeding to which he is not a party is absolutely void as to him. The Board of Health v. Brown, 271 N.C. 401, 156 S.E. 2d 708. Since others have purchased lots within the subdivision with reference to the map, no judicial declaration should be made which has no binding effect, but which might seriously cloud and interfere with such rights as they might have. Britt v. Children\u2019s Homes, 249 N.C. 409, 106 S.E. 2d 474.\nExcept for certain restrictions not relevant to this appeal, the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant provided that the property would be conveyed free and clear of all encumbrances. Under such circumstances equity will not compel the defendant to comply with the contract until the rights, if any, of purchasers of lots in the subdivision have been' determined. Story v. Walcott, 240 N.C. 622, 83 S.E. 2d 498; Sheets v. Dillon, 221 N.C. 426, 20 S.E. 2d 344.\nThree of the four assignments of error brought forward by the defendant are exceptions to .\u201cfindings of fact\u201d by the trial judge. Upon submission of a controversy without action under G.S. 1-250, the cause is for determination on the agreed facts. The court is without authority to find additional facts or to infer or deduce further facts from those given.. Sparrow v. Casualty Co., 243 N.C. 60, 89 S.E. 2d 800; Greensboro v. Wall, 247 N.C. 516, 101 S.E. 2d 413; Realty Corp. v. Koon, supra, and cases cited. Ordinarily it is only when ultimate, not merely evidentiary facts ar\u00e9 contained in the agreed statement that there is a genuine submission of an agreec case. 3 Am. Jur. 2d, Agreed Case, \u00a7 33, p. 744. Ultimate facts are the final facts required to establish the plaintiff\u2019s cause of action or the defendant\u2019s defense; and evidentiary facts are those subsidiary facts required to prove the ultimate facts. Woodard v. Mordecai, 234 N.C. 463, 67 S.E. 2d 639. The facts admitted must be so conclusive and comprehensive in their character as to present only bare questions of law for the court. Trustees v. Banking Company, 182 N.C. 298, 109 S.E. 6.\nIt may well be that agreement on the ultimate facts in this controversy would require too grave and serious an admission, if not a fatal one, on the part of one or more of the litigants. If so, the facts may be determined in the crucible of actual controversy before a jury, or by the court if the present litigants as well as all other necessary parties can agree to waive trial by jury.\nReversed.\nBROCK, J., concurs.\nBritt, J., dissents.", "type": "majority", "author": "Vaughn, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Nelson W. Taylor for plaintiff appellees.", "Boshamer and Graham by Otho L. Graham for defendant appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "SPOONER\u2019S CREEK LAND CORPORATION v. ROMA STYRON and Wife, CATHERINE STYRON\nNo. 693SC398\n(Filed 17 December 1969)\n1. Controversy Without Action \u00a7 1\u2014 scope of remedy \u2014 sufficiency of deed \u2014 necessary parties \u25a0\nThe sufficiency of a deed to convey title can be adjudicated by the submission of a controversy without action under G.S. 1-250; however, all persons having an interest in the controversy must be parties to the aid that they may be concluded by the judgment and that the controversy be finally adjudicated.\n2. Dedication \u00a7 1\u2014 dedication by map \u2014 subdivision streets and parks \u2014 rights acquired\nWhere lots are sold and conveyed by reference to a map or plat which represents a division of a tract of land into streets, lots, parks and playgrounds, a purchaser of a lot or lots acquires the right to have the streets, parks, and playgrounds kept op\u00e9n for his reasonable use; and this right may not be extinguished or diminished except by agreement or estoppel.\n3. Dedication \u00a7 1\u2014 dedication to public\nA dedication must be made to the public and not to part of the public-\n4. Deeds \u00a7 20; Parties \u00a7 1; Dedication \u00a7 1; Vendor and Purchaser \u00a7 10\u2014 action for specific performance \u2014 subdivision map \u2014 park area \u2014 necessary parties\nWhere a contract for the sale of a tract of land in a subdivision provided that the tract would be conveyed to defendant free and clear of all encumbrances, and where there is a map of the subdivision on which the word \u201cPARK\u201d appears in the area embracing the tract in question and other parties have purchased lots in the subdivision with reference to the map, equity will not compel the defendant to comply with the contract until the other parties have been brought into the action as necessary parties and their rights, if any, have been determined with respect to the park. .\n5.-Judgments \u00a7\u00a7 1, 17\u2014 void judgment \u2014 citizen not party to the action\nA judgment rendered by a court against a citizen affecting his vested rights in an action or proceeding to which he is not a party is absolutely void as to him.\n6. Controversy Without Action \u00a7 2\u2014 determination on agreed facts\nUpon submission of a controversy without action under G.S. 1-250, the cause is for determination on the agreed facts and the court is without authority to find additional facts or to infer or deduce further facts from those given.\n7. Controversy Without Action \u00a7 2\u2014 hearing on ultimate facts\nOrdinarily it is only when ultimate, not merely evidentiary, facts are contained in the agreed statement that there is a genuine submission of an agreed case.\n8. Controversy Without Action \u00a7 2\u2014 ultimate facts \u2014 evidentiary facts\nUltimate facts are the final facts required to establish the plaintiff\u2019s cause of action or the defendant\u2019s defense; evidentiary facts are those subsidiary facts required to prove the ultimate facts.\n9. Controversy Without Action \u00a7 2\u2014 nature of facts admitted\nThe facts admitted must be so conclusive and comprehensive in their character as to present only bare questions of law for the court.\nBritt, J., dissents.\nAppeal by defendants from Coioper, J., 10 April 1969 Session of CaeteRET Superior Court.\nUnder the provisions of G.S. Chapter 1, Article 25, the parties submitted a controversy without action. The facts in the agreed case pertinent to this appeal are as follows. Plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract to respectively sell and buy a tract of land on Bogue Sound. The defendants refused to accept the deed or pay the purchase price on the ground that the plaintiff could not convey fee simple unencumbered title to the property. On a map entitled -\u201cSpooner\u2019s Creek Harbor, Inc., Secti\u00f3n No. 1,\u201d the word \u201cPARK\u201d appears on the area which includes the tract in question. The agreed case also provided:\n\u201cIt is also agreed that other parties have purchased lots within Spooner\u2019s Creek Harbor, Inc., Section 1, with reference to the aforesaid map. No use of the area designated as \u2018PARK\u2019 on said map has been made for any purpose. No public body has done anything to accept the area as a park. It is an undeveloped tract of woodsland bordering the waters of Bogue Sound.\u201d\nThe trial judge made certain findings of fact including a finding that \u201cthe area designated as 'PARK\u2019 on the aforesaid map is not a part of Spooner\u2019s Creek Harbor, Inc., Section No. 1, subdivision as shown on the aforesaid map but is an area adjacent thereto and that no dedication of the area marked \u2018PARK\u2019 on said map nor offer to dedicate said area as a park was intended to be made by such designation . . .\u201d\nThe court concluded as a matter of law that there has been no dedication of said area as a \u201cPARK\u201d either for public use or by purchasers of lots within the subdivision and the plaintiff could convey fee simple unencumbered title.\nFrom a judgment ordering specific performance defendants appeal.\nNelson W. Taylor for plaintiff appellees.\nBoshamer and Graham by Otho L. Graham for defendant appellants." }, "file_name": "0025-01", "first_page_order": 47, "last_page_order": 51 }