{
  "id": 8656024,
  "name": "ORMAND MINING COMPANY v. GAMBRILL AND MELVILLE MILLS COMPANY et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ormand Mining Co. v. Gambrill & Melville Mills Co.",
  "decision_date": "1921-05-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "361",
  "last_page": "364",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "181 N.C. 361"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "143 N. C., 307",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657276
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/143/0307-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 346,
    "char_count": 7251,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.454,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.615158577759605e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5267971221488202
    },
    "sha256": "0cd83d0491458e99560d3d64cd42bd1a07ac0190c1531cb0c7e475e993b4ea64",
    "simhash": "1:989ee7e10445ba48",
    "word_count": 1270
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:46:48.388810+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ORMAND MINING COMPANY v. GAMBRILL AND MELVILLE MILLS COMPANY et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clame, C. J.\nTbe plaintiff bolds under mesne conveyance from one Pinchback, whose deed to the plaintiff\u2019s grantor contains the following reservation: \u201cAll the wood and timber is reserved by me,\u201d with the addition that-if the grantee should \u201cdivide up the land referred to into lots and begin the erection of any building on any lot, then I shall have no further right to any timber on said lot after any building is begun.\u201d This deed and reservation was before us in Mining Co. v. Cotton Mills, 143 N. C., 307, and we there held that, \u201c'Where land is conveyed in fee, with the exception of the reservation of the timber, if a time or event is specified upon which the timber must be cut, the reservation expires upon the happening of the event or expiration of the time \u2014 as here, upon beginning the \u2018erection of any building upon any lot.\u2019 If there is no limitation to indicate when the reservation or exception shall expire, then the grantee must give notice for a reasonable time that the grantor must cut or remove the timber agreed in his reservation, and if this\u2019is not done after such reasonable notice, then the reservation or exception falls, and all rights thereunder cease and determine.\u201d The Court further said: \u201cWhether the right to cut timber is a grant or a reservation, it expires at the time specified. When no time is specified, a grantee of such right takes upon the implied agreement to cut and remove within a reasonable time. He has bought the timber for that purpose, whereas, when a grantor of the fee reserves or excepts the timber he is not providing for timber cutting, but reserving a right, and should be entitled to hold until this is put an end to by the grantee' giving notice for reasonable time so that the grantee may elect to cut, or sell this right to another.\u201d\nIt is further said: \u201cIn this contract, the event upon which the reservation should terminate is stipulated for, and is when the land is divided into lots and tbe erection of any building is begun on any lot, tben tbe grantor \u2018shall bave no further right to any timber upon the said lot,\u2019 and in that case it was held that, \u2018The plaintiff could not recover of the defendant, who is assignee of the reservation for timber cut on any lot before the happening of the event which it was \u00e1greed should put an end to the reservation.\u2019 \u201d\nIn this action the jury have found that \u201cthe defendants have exercised their right upon-the lots in question, and that the plaintiff gave the defendants notice on 29 December, 1914, to cut and remove such wood and timber as were included with said reservation; and that the time which elapsed from the date of said notice to the institution of this action (8 January, 1918), was reasonable time for such cutting.and removal, and that the defendants\u2019 claim under said reservation is a cloud upon the plaintiff\u2019s title to said land.\u201d\nWhen this matter was here before, 143 N. C., 307, a different proposition was involved. The decision in this case is in no wise contradictory to that, for not only the contingency has happened, which had not then occurred, and the jury finds that the defendants have exercised their right by cutting the timber on the lots in question which belonged to them, under the reservation, but in addition that the plaintiff gave the defendants notice and reasonable time to cut and remove the timber, and it follows that the reservation has now, lapsed, and the plaintiffs are entitled to have the cloud, cast by the reservation upon their title, removed. ' \u25a0\nThe judgment of the court herein decrees that \u201cthe plaintiff is owner of the land described, and is owner of the wood and timber now thereon, and that all rights of the defendants under the reservation of the wood and timber have expired and perpetually enjoined the defendants from asserting any title or claims to said wood and timber under said reservation, and from doing, any act or thing to disturb the quiet possession by the plaintiff of the said lands and the wood and timber being thereon, and from instituting any action upon a cause of action growing out of the reservation of the wood and timber against the plaintiff or its grantees.\u201d In the-proceedings and judgment we find no error.\nThe appellee moves in this Court as a modification of the judgment in the court below that the plaintiff in the several actions enumerated in 'the complaint be enjoined from further prosecution of those actions, because this being an action in equity to quiet the title and the several actions therein mentioned as shown by the complaints attached as exhibits to the plaintiff\u2019s complaint in this action grow out of the timber and wood reservation herein referred to, and such actions are numerous and are based upon the interpretation of the clause of reservation in this deed. -\nAll the plaintiffs in those actions, as we understand it, have been made parties to tbe case at bar. Tbe judgment herein is decisive of tbe rights of tbe parties in all such actions, and we think tbe plaintiff is entitled to such modification of tbe judgment in tbe nature of a bill of peace. Although tbe plaintiff has not appealed, it is proper that tbe Court should render such judgment as \u201cupon an inspection of tbe whole record ought in law to be rendered.\u201d C. S., 1412, and notes thereto.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clame, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "S. J. Durham for plaintiff.",
      "O. E. Whitney and A. G. Mangum for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ORMAND MINING COMPANY v. GAMBRILL AND MELVILLE MILLS COMPANY et al.\n(Filed 11 May, 1921.)\n1. Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Timber\u2014Reservation of Title \u2014 Conditions\u2014 Notice.\nA grantor of lands reserving \u201call wood and timber\u201d thereon, with provision that should the grantee divide the lands into the lots the reserved right would cease \u201cafter any building is begun,\u201d is required to give a reasonable notice of the time the reservation shall expire, when no time limit therefor is specified.\n2. Same \u2014 Equity\u2014Cloud on Title \u2014 Suits.\nWhere the grantor of lands has reserved the right to the timber growing thereon, but this right to cease if the grantee divide the lands into lots and erect buildings thereon, and the grantee, after reasonable notice to cut the timber has not done so on all of the lots, his claim of right to continue the cutting as to these remaining lots is a cloud upon the grantor\u2019s title, which he may have removed in his suit for that purpose.\n3. Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Timber Deeds \u2014 Expiration of Time Limit\u2014 Injunction \u2014 Equity.\nAn order perpetually enjoining a grantee in a deed from cutting timber upon land after his right has ceased is a proper one in a suit by the owner to remove the grantee\u2019s claim of right as a cloud upon his title.\n4. Appeal and Error \u2014 Supreme Court \u2014 Equity\u2014Bill o\u00ed Peace \u2014 Pending Suits \u2014 Injunction\u2014Statutes.\nA judgment of tlie Superior Court may be modified on appeal wliere tbe plaintiff\u2019s right to remove adverse claims as a cloud upon his title to lands has been established, so as to enjoin, upon defendant\u2019s appeal, actions pending in the Superior Court involving the same equity and the same subject-matter, where the parties thereto have been made parties to the case at bar, the proceedings being in the nature of a bill of peace. C. S., 1412.\nAppeal by defendants from Bryson, J., at September Term, 1920, of GrASTON.\nS. J. Durham for plaintiff.\nO. E. Whitney and A. G. Mangum for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0361-01",
  "first_page_order": 413,
  "last_page_order": 416
}