{ "id": 8565952, "name": "MYRTLE JONES v. MAGGIE BEATRICE OVERMAN SAUNDERS and husband, BRYAN SAUNDERS", "name_abbreviation": "Jones v. Saunders", "decision_date": "1962-05-02", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "118", "last_page": "119", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "257 N.C. 118" } ], "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": "50 S.E. 2d 732", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "229 N.C. 606", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12167175 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/229/0606-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 S.E. 2d 594", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "244 N.C. 598", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2219493 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/244/0598-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 S.E. 2d 271", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "245 N.C. 98", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8605021 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/245/0098-01" ] }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 797", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "803" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 S.E. 2d 789", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 644", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627646 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/254/0644-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 355, "char_count": 5073, "ocr_confidence": 0.566, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.315005732208552e-08, "percentile": 0.3884672426848052 }, "sha256": "da66192514ec362432d31ed130ecda03e0d5cfe1151af9996ad3f1b5d8e90121", "simhash": "1:ba83fc5bab282c96", "word_count": 870 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:42.075591+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "MYRTLE JONES v. MAGGIE BEATRICE OVERMAN SAUNDERS and husband, BRYAN SAUNDERS." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nThis case was here at the Spring Term 1961. Jones v. Saunders, 254 N.C. 644, 119 S.E. 2d 789. In the former record there was considerably more evidence both of delivery and non-delivery of the deed than appears in the present record.\nThe assignments of error based on the exclusion of testimony do not properly present the questions involved. They do not comply with the requirements of Rules 19(3) and 21 of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court. 254 N.C. 797, 803. They are insufficient to present the errors relied upon without the necessity of going beyond the assignments themselves to learn what the questions are. Lowie & Co. v. Atkins, 245 N.C. 98, 95 S.E. 2d 271; Armstrong v. Howard, 244 N.C. 598, 94 S.E. 2d 594; 1 Strong: N. C. Index, Appeal and Error, s. 19, p. 90.\nThe evidence tends to show: Feme defendant lived with her father at the homeplace until 1951 when they moved elsewhere; her mother had died in 1941 and her father did not remarry. She and her father lived together at other locations until his death. They lived with plaintiff at Ramseur from 1951 to 1956. Feme defendant married male defendant in 1955, and in 1956 she and her father moved to the home provided by her husband. Plaintiff married in 1921 and left the homeplace and did not live there any more. The deed in question was executed and acknowledged by the father on 26 March 1947 while he was living at the homeplace. The deed purported to reserve to the grantor a life estate. It was recorded after grantor\u2019s death. Shortly after grantor\u2019s death jeme defendant handed plaintiff an envelope and said, \u201cHere is what papa left for you.\u201d Thereafter, she said to plaintiff, \u201cMaggie, you may think I know how things were fixed, but God in heaven knows I didn\u2019t know a thing about it.\u201d There was never any mention of the deed. The father had granted to Randolph Electric Membership Corporation an easement in 1949, and listed the property for taxes in his own name each year until he died.\nWe think the court was correct in granting nonsuit. The probate and registration of a deed gives rise to the rebuttable presumption that it was signed, sealed and delivered by the grantor. This is true even if the deed is registered after the death of the grantor. Cannon v. Blair, 229 N.C. 606, 50 S.E. 2d 732. Nowhere in the evidence, including that which was excluded, is there any specific reference to the deed, other than the admission of the deed itself in evidence. The purported statements of feme defendant are so indefinite as to leave in the realm of conjecture the subject of conversation. The listing of taxes by one who supposes he has reserved a life estate is not inconsistent with prior delivery of a deed for the remainder interest. Since the deed in question was not of record, it is not strange that the Membership Corporation obtained its easement from the one with record title. Plaintiff\u2019s evidence was insufficient for submission to the jury on the issue of nondelivery.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Pee Cueiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Ottway Burton and Linwood T. Peoples for plaintiff.", "Coltrane & Gavin for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MYRTLE JONES v. MAGGIE BEATRICE OVERMAN SAUNDERS and husband, BRYAN SAUNDERS.\n(Filed 2 May 1962.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 19\u2014\nAssignments of error should disclose the errors relied on without the necessity of going beyond the assignments themselves.\n2. Deeds \u00a7 7\u2014\nThe registration of a deed, even though done after the death of grantor, creates a rebuttable presumption that it was signed, sealed, and delivered by the grantor, and where the deed reserves a life estate in the grantor, such presumption is not rebutted by evidence that, after its execution, grantor listed and paid taxes on the land, and that, the deed not having been recorded, easement was obtained for a power line from the grantor, and that after grantor\u2019s death, grantee, the daughter of grantor, made statements that she, did not know \u201chow things were,\u201d and handed a sealed envelope to her sister saying, \u201chere is what papa left for you,\u201d there being no evidence that the statements had reference to the deed.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Walker, S.J., September 1961 Term of Randolph.\nThis is a civil action to have a deed set aside and declared void for non-delivery.\nThe complaint in pertinent part alleges in substance: Plaintiff and feme defendant are daughters of C. S. Overman who died 28 February 1957. On 6 March 1957, after Overman\u2019s death, feme defendant caused to be recorded in the public registry of Randolph County a deed from Overman to her, dated 26 March 1947, reciting a consideration of $500 and purporting to convey Overman\u2019s homeplace situate in Columbia Township, Randolph County, containing 65 acres. The deed had never been delivered but was found by feme defendant after her father died.\nDefendants, answering, admit the kinship of the parties and the recordation and contents of the deed, but deny the other material allegations of the complaint.\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence the court allowed defendants\u2019 motion for nonsuit, and entered judgment dismissing the action.\nPlaintiff appeals.\nOttway Burton and Linwood T. Peoples for plaintiff.\nColtrane & Gavin for defendants." }, "file_name": "0118-01", "first_page_order": 158, "last_page_order": 159 }