Harper v. . Rivenbark
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by plaintiff from Connor, J., at October Term, 1913, of Nash. This is an action to recover damages for the loss of a sawmill plant. The plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he is the owner of said plant, which is denied by the defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff from Connor, J., at October Term, 1913, of Nash. This is an action to recover damages for the loss of a sawmill plant. The plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he is the owner of said plant, which is denied by the defendant. Evidence was offered tending to prove that prior to 30 May, 1906, ~W. J. Teachey and the defendant Rivenbark were the owners of said plant; that on said day' they sold the same to the plaintiff for $1,250, under an agreement that he would pay-the debts of the partnership of Teachey and Rivenbark; that the plaintiff subsequently agreed with said…
1Opinion of the CourtAlleN, J.
The plaintiff alleges that he was the owner and had possession of the property in controversy at the time of the alleged wrongful acts of the defendant, and these allegations are comprehensive enough to include a special property therein with a present right of possession. 38 Cyc., 1550; Cumbey v. Lovett, 26 Minn., 229; Penland v. Leatherwood, 101 N. C., 515.
In the Minnesota case the Court says: “In an action of claim and delivery the plaintiff is not required to plead specially the source of his title, or the particular facts which entitle him to the .possession of the property. He may…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. Minneapolis Mill Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
- Penland v. . LeatherwoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
3Cited by2 opinions
- Stanley v. CoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
- California Land & Construction Co. v. HalloranUtah Supreme Court · 1932