{
  "id": 8654978,
  "name": "CHESS TRIPLETT and MRS. ELLEN POPLIN v. W. A. HENDRIX",
  "name_abbreviation": "Triplett v. Hendrix",
  "decision_date": "1925-05-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "693",
  "last_page": "695",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "189 N.C. 693"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 286,
    "char_count": 4145,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.424,
    "sha256": "8ea7838696e9db44e8fa946a26c02e64b800f7244a32040c57eb96c8ab436509",
    "simhash": "1:17070aa1bc34299a",
    "word_count": 724
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:40:32.095485+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CHESS TRIPLETT and MRS. ELLEN POPLIN v. W. A. HENDRIX."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\n\u00a5e have heard the oral arguments in this case. We have examined the record carefully, the charge of the court below, and the able briefs of counsel. We have gone carefully over the assignments of error, andj on the entire record, we can find no prejudicial or reversible error.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John H. Folger, William M. Allen, Floyd Grouse and Charles G. Gilreath for plaintiffs.",
      "Hayes & J ones and J. H. Burke for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CHESS TRIPLETT and MRS. ELLEN POPLIN v. W. A. HENDRIX.\n(Filed 20 May, 1925.)\nLimitation of Actions \u2014 Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Color of Title.\nHeld,, on this appeal, no error in the judgment upon the verdict that the plaintiff\u2019s action to recover lands was barred by the statute of limitations upon the question of defendant\u2019s adverse possession under color of title.\nAppeal from Long, J., and a jury, at October Term, 1924, of Wilices.\nJohn Greenwood owned tbe tract of land in controversy, which plaintiffs seek to recover in this action. He and his wife made a deed to his son, Thomas J. Greenwood, 8 November, 1886. Thomas J. Greenwood and his wife, on 14 August, 1907, made a deed to the land to W. A. Hendrix, defendant in this action. All the deeds were duly registered at the time in the register of deeds office of Wilkes County. Thomas I. Greenwood went west, returned and then went west again. The record discloses that he was married and separated from his wife, who is now dead, that he had no children and had not been heard from in years\u2014 since 1912.\nPlaintiffs are grandchildren of John Greenwood, and 'the owners in their own right and by quit-claim deed of all the interest of the other heirs at law of John Greenwood, and, as such, claim the land in controversy. Plaintiffs contend that Thomas J. Greenwood only took a life estate in the land deeded by his father and their grandfather, and had no right to make a fee-simple title to defendant, W. A. Hendrix. That their cause of action is not barred by the statute of limitation.\nThe defendant, W. A. Hendrix, contends to th\u00bf contrary. He claims that he made a contract to purchase the land from Thomas J. Greenwood and declined to take it on account of the ambiguous clause in the warranty clause of the deed. That Thomas J. Greenwood sued him in the Superior Court of Wilkes County. When the case was tried, the judge held that the deed from John Greenwood conveyed a fee-simple title to Thomas J. Greenwood, and rendered judgment against him, compelling him to take the land and pay the purchase price \u2014 -full value for the land, and in good faith he made valuable improvements on the land. \u201cThat the defendant, ever since 15 August, 1907, has been in the actual exclusive possession of the lands described in the complaint, under known and visible lines and boundaries, and under colorable title, for more than 7 years prior to the commencement of this suit, said possession having extended continuously from 15 August, 1909, until the commencement of this action, and the summons in this action not having been issued until 15 July, 1924; the-said possession has been adverse to all persons, and this defendant has exercised every act of ownership over it of which it was susceptible, and had no intimation or suggestion that any other persons asserted any claim or right to the same until just a few days before the summons was issued the plaintiff, Chess Triplett, informed this defendant that he was going to bring suit to' recover.\u201d (C. S., 428.)\nThe issue submitted to' the jury and their answer thereto, was as follows:\n\u201cIs the plaintiffs\u2019 cause of action barred by the statute of limitation ? Answer: \u2018Tes.\u2019\u201d\nThere was judgment upon the verdict, as follows:\n\u201cIt is therefore, ordered\u2019 and adjudged that the plaintiffs are not the owners in fee and are not entitled to recover the lands described in the complaint, and that the defendant is not in the wrongful or unlawful possession thereof; and the plaintiffs and the surety on their prosecution bond are adjudged to pay the costs to be taxed by the clerk.\u201d\nMany exceptions and assignments of error were made in the court below by plaintiffs and appeal taken to the Supreme Court.\nJohn H. Folger, William M. Allen, Floyd Grouse and Charles G. Gilreath for plaintiffs.\nHayes & J ones and J. H. Burke for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0693-01",
  "first_page_order": 771,
  "last_page_order": 773
}