#### G. W. MITCHELL v. V. H. FREEMAN.

(Filed 19 February, 1913.)

Limitations of Actions — Parol Contract to Convey — Acts of Ouster —Deeds and Conveyances.

Tbe statute of limitations does not begin to run in favor of one wbo bas entered into possession of lands under a parol contract to convey and wbo bas never paid any part of tbe purchase price, until after some act on bis part showing that be is bolding it adversely to the owner; and in this case it appearing that no such act bad been done prior to a recent conveyance, made within a year next before the commencement of the action, tbe plea is not available.

Appeal by defendant from Cline, J., at tbe April Term, 1912, of Bertie. *

L. L. Smith for plaintiff.

Winborne & Winborne, Murray Allen, and Winston & Matthews for defendant. ■

Clark, C. J.

Tbe plaintiff sold tbe land in controversy, 20 acres, to J. B. Ruffin for tbe sum of $60 upon a parol conditional sale under wbicb be entered into possession in 1882. In March, 1909, tbe children of J. B. Ruffin, be being dead, conveyed a tract of land to tbe defendant Freeman, within tbe boundaries of wbicb were embraced tbe 20 acres in controversy. There are several exceptions, but tbe only one that requires consideration is tbe defense of tbe statute of limitations.

Tbe plaintiff executed no conveyance or written agreement to convey, to J. B. Ruffin or bis heirs. Ruffin entered into possession under a parol agreement to pay tbe purchase money. No part of this bas been paid, nor bas there been any offer to pay, though tbe plaintiff is willing to accept tbe same with interest thereon. There is no evidence of any adverse possession until tbe conveyance to tbe defendant in March, 1909, and this action was begun in September of that year. Tbe plea of the. statute could not avail tbe defendants.

No error.