{ "id": 8568473, "name": "CHARLES N. COLLINS and ROBERT L. RAY v. R. L. COLEMAN & COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Collins v. R. L. Coleman & Co.", "decision_date": "1964-09-23", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "478", "last_page": "481", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "262 N.C. 478" } ], "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": "107 N.C. 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272529 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/107/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 S.E. 2d 52", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "252 N.C. 23", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616869 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/252/0023-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 S.E. 2d 779", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "243 N.C. 43", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8620175 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/243/0043-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 S.E. 2d 204", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 N.C. 396", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625008 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/235/0396-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 S.E. 2d 144", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 190", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8601291 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0190-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 S.E. 2d 717", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 N.C. 579", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8610673, 8610814 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/232/0579-01", "/nc/232/0579-02" ] }, { "cite": "56 S.E. 2d 643", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "231 N.C. 297", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629391 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/231/0297-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 S.E. 2d 708", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "217 N.C. 334", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8606702 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/217/0334-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 S.E. 818", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "213 N.C. 540", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629153 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/213/0540-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 S.E. 753", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "207 N.C. 211", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624550 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0211-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 S.E. 796", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N.C. 226", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8615332 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0226-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 S.E. 391", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N.C. 55", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611193 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0055-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 S.E. 2d 644", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "250 N.C. 346", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622954 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/250/0346-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 S.E. 486", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N.C. 58", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611318 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0058-01" ] }, { "cite": "151 S.E. 259", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 N.C. 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8604962 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/198/0252-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 S.E. 337", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "159 N.C. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657710 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/159/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 S.E. 186", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "178 N.C. 104", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271213 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/178/0104-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 S.E. 2d 726", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "255 N.C. 374", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569674 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/255/0374-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 S.E. 142", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 N.C. 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650704 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/104/0112-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 498, "char_count": 7576, "ocr_confidence": 0.57, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08, "percentile": 0.32364203472866565 }, "sha256": "de7599de5dc4d1bc4cf5f60a0f10a458fae1049d9d6f630ab05efc11aaaf970c", "simhash": "1:0c084211469b6fc6", "word_count": 1315 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:57:24.361559+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "CHARLES N. COLLINS and ROBERT L. RAY v. R. L. COLEMAN & COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "RodmaN, J.\nPlaintiffs allege: They are the owners in fee of Lot No. 9 of the Horney\u2019s-Hayes subdivision, as shown in Plat Book 5, p. 112, Register\u2019s office of Buncombe County; defendant has a lien on the property as assignee of the county\u2019s claim for taxes. They tendered the amount admitted to be owing.\nDefendant denied plaintiffs owned the land; additionally it alleged: \u201cThat on September 29, 1934, an action was instituted in the Superior Court of Buncombe County against Effie Selby and husband for the purpose of foreclosing any interest Effie Selby had or may have had in the lot of land described in plaintiffs\u2019 complaint for failure to pay taxes lawfully levied and assessed for the years 1930 and 1931, the said action being entitled \u2018Board of Tax Supervision for Buncombe County v. Effie Selby and husband.\u2019\n\u201cThat thereafter, the Superior Court of Buncombe County acquired jurisdiction of the defendant, Effie Selby, and acquired jurisdiction of the res, and that by subsequent orders and decree, all right, title and interest that the then owner had or may have had was foreclosed and sold and by mesne conveyances the title thereto was vested in the Board of Tax Supervision for Buncombe County, and the commissioner duly appointed in said action so instituted in the Superior Court of Buncombe County did, on October 7, 1940, convey all right, title and interest thereto to the Board of Tax Supervision for Buncombe County who thereafter and for valuable considerations, on August 2, 1962, conveyed the same to R. L. Coleman & Company and this answering defendant\u2019s indefeasible fee simple title as against all persons became vested in this defendant prior to any attempt on the part of plaintiffs to acquire the same by any purported conveyance subject thereto.\u201d\nPlaintiffs offered the following evidence: (1) A deed, dated August 27, 1928, purporting to convey the lot in controversy to Effie Selby; (2) the quoted portions of defendant\u2019s answer; (3) a certified copy of a \u201cDeath Certificate\u201d showing Effie Selby, a widow, residing at 24 Woodfin Place, died in Asheville in January 1930; (4) deeds, dated in September 1962, from Martha Selby Hammond, a widow, and Evans Selby and wife, purporting to convey the lands in controversy to plaintiffs; (5) parol evidence that Effie Selby died in January 1930; she was a widow; her husband died in 1928; her surviving descendants were a son Evans, and a daughter Martha Hammond.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 evidence was sufficient to show the parties claimed under a common source. If the evidence also showed plaintiffs had the better title from the common source, the court was in error in granting the defendant\u2019s motion. Mobley v. Griffin, 104 N.C. 112, 10 S.E. 142.\nMrs. Selby\u2019s death having been shown, a presumption arose that she died intestate, Chisholm v. Hall, 255 N.C. 374, 121 S.E. 2d 726; Barham v. Holland, 178 N.C. 104, 100 S.E. 186; 26A C.J.S. 519; and her real estate passed to her descendants, G.S. 29-1, Rule 1, (Vol. 2A, p. 106).\nIf the evidence shows the invalidity of the action, instituted in September 1934 against Effie Selby and her husband, to foreclose Buncombe County\u2019s lien for taxes for 1930 and 1931, plaintiffs have shown a better title from the common source.\nThe procedure for the assessment and collection; of taxes on real estate is fixed by statute. The procedural statutes dealing with taxes assessed for the years 1930 and 1931 are the Machinery Acts of 1929 and 1931, C. 344, P. L. 1929, and C. 428, P. L. 1931.\nSections 400 and 500 of those Acts required real estate to be listed for taxation to the person owning the property on April 1st, c/f G.S. 105-208. The owner was obligated to list: sec. 507(1), c/f G.S. 105-301 (a). If the owner failed to list, public officials could list after notice to the owner, sec. 521(3), Machinery Acts of 1929 and 1931, c/f G.S. 105-331(b). \u201cThe Legislature provided these safeguards for the just protection of the taxpayer.\u201d Rexford v. Phillips, 159 N.C. 213 (217), 74 S.E. 337. \u201cThe provision in reference to the authoritative listing of property is a basic requirement of the law.\u201d Phillips v. Kerr, 198 N.C. 252, 151 S.E. 259. The law in force when the property should be listed is determinative of the rights of the parties. Madison County v. Coxe, 204 N.C. 58, 167 S.E. 486; Phillips v. Kerr, supra.\nWhen Effie Selby died, her real estate passed immediately to her heirs at law, subject only to the rights of her creditors to subject it to the payment of her debts. Baker v. Murphrey, 250 N.C. 346, 108 S.E. 2d 644.\nOn plaintiffs\u2019 evidence, Mrs. Selby\u2019s property was not liable to Buncombe County for taxes. Mrs. Selby\u2019s children owned the land when tax liability for the years 1930 and 1931 accrued.\nAn attempted foreclosure of an asserted tax lien on property listed in the name of a dead person, and not by the true owner, when neither notice of the listing, nor foreclosure has been accorded the owner, is void. Wake County v. Faison, 204 N.C. 55, 167 S.E. 391. \u201c[T]he law as interpreted and applied in this State, has uniformly commanded a day in Court for parties in interest.\u201d Brogden, J., in Guy v. Harmon, 204 N.C. 226, 167 S.E. 796; Beaufort County v. Mayo, 207 N.C. 211, 176 S.E. 753; Wendell v. Scarboro, 213 N.C. 540, 196 S.E. 818; Johnston County v. Stewart, 217 N.C. 334, 7 S.E. 2d 708; Wilmington v. Merrick, 231 N.C. 297, 56 S.E. 2d 643; Eason v. Spence, 232 N.C. 579, 61 S.E. 2d 717; Comrs. of Roxboro v. Bumpass, 233 N.C. 190, 63 S.E. 2d 144; Boone v. Sparrow, 235 N.C. 396, 70 S.E. 2d 204; Rand v. Wilson County, 243 N.C. 43, 89 S.E. 2d 779.\nAs said in Page v. Hynds, 252 N.C. 23 (28), 113 S.E. 2d 52: \u201cA valid judgment may be rendered in favor of a party who is dead when the judgment is entered. A judgment against a party rendered after his death is, unless saved by the statute (G.S. 1-225) irregular and may be vacated by motion. Wood v. Watson, 107 N.C. 52. But a judgment against one dead when the original process issued is a mere nullity. It can bind no one.\u201d\nDefendant, by its answer, based its claim of title on title vested in Effie Selby on April 1, 1930. Plaintiffs\u2019 evidence shows Effie Selby\u2019s title to the land in controversy terminated in January 1930.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 evidence shows they have a superior title from a common source.\nReversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "RodmaN, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "S. Thomas Walton for plaintiffs.", "Loftin \u25a0& Loftin for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CHARLES N. COLLINS and ROBERT L. RAY v. R. L. COLEMAN & COMPANY.\n(Filed 23 September, 1964.)\nX. Descent and Distribution \u00a7 1; Evidence \u00a7 4\u2014\nProof of the death of a person raises a presumption that such person died intestate and, nothing else appearing, such person\u2019s real estate passes to her descendants. G.S. 29-1(1).\n2. Taxation \u00a7 38\u2014\nProof that a person died intestate in January 1930 renders void an attempted foreclosure of tax liens for the years 1930 and 1931 when neither notice of listing nor foreclosure has been accorded intestate\u2019s heirs at law. G.S. 105-208.\n3. Judgments \u00a7 19\u2014\nA judgment rendered against a person who was dead at the time of the institution of the action is void.\n4. Quieting Title \u00a7 2\u2014\nPlaintiff\u2019s proof of a common source of title and that the defendants claim under a tax foreclosure against the title of such common source, with further proof that the tax foreclosure was void, precludes nonsuit.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Froneberger, J., February 1964 Civil Session O\u00cd B\u00fcNCOMBE.\nThis is an action to remove a cloud from plaintiffs\u2019 title. At the conclusion of plaintiffs\u2019 evidence, the court allowed defendant\u2019s motion to nonsuit. Plaintiffs excepted and appealed.\nS. Thomas Walton for plaintiffs.\nLoftin \u25a0& Loftin for defendant." }, "file_name": "0478-01", "first_page_order": 522, "last_page_order": 525 }