Johnson v. . Woody

Readu, .]. It is admitted that the land in dispute was' at one time the property of William Woody ; and the plaintiff Insists that said William.Woody was seized and possessed of the land at the time of his death ; and that the same de-oended to his children and heirs at law; and that he the plaintiff bought six ninths of the undivided shares of the heirs; and that he now owns the same and he claims to be let into possession with the defendant, who is one of the heirs at law, as tenant in common. The defendant who is one of the children and heirs at, law of the deceased William Woody, claims under an alleged purchase from his father, and shows a deed for the whole land. To this the plaintiff’replied that the said deed was a forgery. There was an issue submitted to the jury, ‘ whether that deed was a forgery ?” And the jury found that it was not. Upon the trial of that issue the plaintiff proved and relied upon a number of circumstances to show that the deed was a forgery, such as, that the grantor remained in possession all his life, that the defendant paid him rent for a portion of it, that he took a deed from him for fifty acres of it, that the defendant took out a grant from the State for it, that he did not pay taxes for it, that lie took the insolvent debtor’s oath, that he only claimed one ninth of it after his father’s death, that he purchased the share of one of the other heirs; which circumstances together with others, it would seem, must have made a pretty formidable array against the defendant upon the question of forgery. But still the jury found that the deed was not a forgery. And it would seem that this should have put an end to the plaintiff’s case. And so His Honor below held. But 1he plaintiff’s learned and ingenious counsel now insist *399 that altliougb these circumstances had not the force to induce the jury to find the deed a forgery, yet they should have the force to estop the defendant from claiming title under it. And for this he cites Holmes v. Crowell, 73 N. C. 613 ; Exum v. Cogdell, 74 N. C. 139, and Bigelow on Estop-pel, 438. But before that doctrine can avail the plaintiff, it must appear at least that the defendant concealed his title when he knew that it was calculated to-deceive the plaintiff and induce him to buy ; and that he was thereby deceived and induced to buy. But here there was no issue involving the question, an. I no evidence tending to prove it. There is no error. Prut Cuuiam. Judgment affirmed.