Pearce v. . Rowland

Stacy, C. J. It is admitted tbat prior to tbe sale of tbe land for taxes in 1933, tbe feme petitioner and respondent were vested remainder-men (tenants in common in expectancy) deriving tbeir title and interests —one-fourtb and tbree-fourtbs respectively — from a common source. Priddy & Co. v. Sanderford, 221 N. C., 422, 20 S. E. (2d), 341; 14 Am. Jur., 124. There is some evidence tbat respondent was in possession of tbe land when tbe tax lien was foreclosed. After sale to Franklin County in tbe tax foreclosure proceeding, tbe county extended to tbe parties in interest an opportunity to redeem tbe land upon payment of tbe taxes then due and in arrears. This offer was accepted by tbe respondent on tbe first Monday in April, 1933, at which time he “made a $10.00 deposit on tbe taxes, thinking Mrs. Pearce-would come and pay ber part.” He is not certain whether be went to see her after making tbe deposit, but be says, “I gave ber a good showing in my estimation to come and protect ber land if sbe wanted to.” Tbe respondent finally paid tbe taxes in full on 4 November, 1933, and received a deed from tbe county, which bad theretofore been prepared on 19 April. It is this deed which be says forecloses tbe feme petitioner’s interest in tbe land and gives him sole seizin and exclusive title thereto. There is a dispute as to whether 'the respondent was under promise to pay feme petitioner’s part of the taxes and account to her- in rents (Bailey v. Howell, 209 N. C., 712, 184 S. E., 476) before tbe institution of the tax foreclosure proceeding. Sbe testifies that sbe did not file answer in tbe proceeding, “because Mr. Rowland promised to pay the taxes.” Tbe respondent felt under some obligation to tbe feme petitioner even after bis agreement with tbe county to redeem the land upon payment of tbe taxes. Stell v. Trust Co., 223 N. C., 550, 27 S. E. (2d), 524, and cases there cited. He was very grateful to tbe County Attorney, “thanked him six or seven times, for getting him straightened out so be could get title to it.” Tbe respondent says be has owned tbe whole of tbe land in question since 1933, “having purchased tbree-fourtbs from tbe heirs of W. A. *592 Parrish, and one-fourth from the county.” Was the purchase of the one-fourth from the county made for the benefit of the feme petitioner ? The answer depends upon whether the respondent was under any legal or moral obligation to pay the taxes. Smith v. Smith, 150 N. C., 81, 63 S. E., 177. The feme petitioner says he was. The respondent says he was not, or that, if he were, he discharged his duty in this respect. The evidence is such as to require the aid of a jury, free to render a verdict in keeping with the facts as it may find them to be under proper instructions from the court. The plea of laches is also a matter to be considered on the further hearing. Stell v. Trust Co., supra. There was error in directing a verdict for the petitioners. New trial.