Stonestreet v. . Means

Staoy, C. J. The question for decisipn is whether the purchaser from a landlord may maintain a possessory action in the Superior Court against a tenant who holds over when he might have proceeded in summary ejectment before a justice of the peace. The trial court answered in the affirmative, and we approve. It is provided by G. S., 42-26, et seq., that a landlord may dispossess a tenant who holds over and continues in possession of demised premises without permission and after demand for surrender, by a summary proceeding in ejectment instituted before any justice of the peace of the county in which the demised premises are situated.. G. S., 42-28. Such proceeding, 'however, even when appropriate and available, is neither *115 mandatory nor exclusive. Tbe Superior Court still bas original jurisdiction to entertain actions for tbe recovery of land and “it seems tbat justices of tbe peace, as between landlords and tenants, bave concurrent jurisdiction witb tbe Superior Courts.” McDonald v. Ingram, 124 N. C., 272, 32 S. E., 677. Here, tbe plaintiff’s ownership of tbe land is admitted. Defendant concedes tbat, in view of tbe verdict be is a tenant wrongfully bolding over. He resists eviction on tbe ground tbat a court of tbe justice of tbe peace, and not tbe Superior Court, bas exclusive original jurisdiction of tbe action. It can make no difference whether tbe action be regarded as one to recover possession of land, or a summary proceeding in ejectment, tbe jurisdiction of the Superior Court attaches in either event. Bryan v. Street, 209 N. C., 284, 183 S. E., 366. It is provided by G. S., 7-63, “Tbe Superior Court bas original jurisdiction of all civil actions whereof exclusive original jurisdiction is not given to some other court.” Ogburn v. Booker, 197 N. C., 687, 150 S. E., 330; Shelton v. Glinard, 187 N. C., 664, 122 S. E., 477; Seligson v. Klyman, N. C., 347. Exclusive original jurisdiction is not vested in courts of justices of tbe peace in summary ejectment. See Machine Co. v. Burger, 181 N. C., 241, 107 S. E., 14, for general discussion. Tbe challenge to tbe jurisdiction was properly overruled. It is observed tbat tbe jury attached a recommendation to its verdict, which tbe court incorporated in tbe judgment, without objection from either side. No doubt they smiled and said nothing, like tbe parties to a certain deed when they noticed tbat tbe eminent lawyer who drew it, while not a party to tbe deed, bad inserted a clause therein reserving to himself “tbe right to fish in said mill pond for and during the term of bis natural life.” Tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld. No error.