Maynard v. Holder, 216 N.C. 524 (1939)

Nov. 22, 1939 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

216 N.C. 524

HENRY MAYNARD and Wife, DESSIE MAYNARD, v. GENEVA MARTIN HOLDER, Widow; GRACIE HOLDER JONES and ROBERT JONES, Her Husband; CLOIE HOLDER WALL and DUTCH WALL, Her Husband; BERDIE HOLDER WALL and ROSCOE WALL, Her Husband; VALLIE HOLDER HODGE and ARTHUR HODGE, Her Husband; and NANNIE HOLDER JACKSON and ALVESTA J. JACKSON, Her Husband.

(Filed 22 November, 1939.)

1. Quieting Title § 1: Statutes § 5d—

The statute relating to actions to quiet title is a remedial statute and must be liberally construed.

2. Quieting Title § 1—

An action to quiet title may be maintained to determine conflicting claims of title to a strip of land lying between the lands of the parties, C. S., 1743.

Appeal by plaintiffs from Stevens, J., at May Civil Term, 1939, of ¥ake.

Reversed.

This was an action to quiet title to certain described land. Plaintiffs alleged that tbe defendants wrongfully claimed title to a strip of land on the northern side of plaintiffs’ land adjacent to and adjoining lands of defendants, and that the claim of defendants cast a cloud upon the title of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also alleged title by adverse possession. Defendants denied plaintiffs’ title to the land referred to and denied that defendants’ claim constituted any cloud thereon. At the hearing, upon the reading of the pleadings and arguments of counsel, the court below held that the proper relief of plaintiffs was a suit in ejectment and not an action to quiet title, and thereupon dismissed the action at the cost of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs excepted and appealed.

Stanley L. Seligson and John W. Hinsdale for plaintiffs, appellants.

Douglass & Douglass and Thomas W. Ruffin for defendants, appellees.

Per Curiam.

It is prescribed by C. S., 1743: “An action may be brought by any person against another who claims an estate or interest in real property adverse to him for the purpose of determining such adverse claims.”

Giving a liberal construction to this remedial statute, it is apparent that the court below was in error in dismissing this action. The pleadings were sufficient to raise an issue under which the court could proceed to determine the rights of the parties. Satterwhite v. Gallagher, 173 N. C., 525, 92 S. E., 369; Hardware Co. v. Cotton Co., 188 N. C., 442, 124 S. E., 756.

Reversed.