Dunn v. . Jones

Per Oueiam. Tbe plaintiff in bis brief says: “When tbe rich young ruler went to Christ and asked what be should do to inherit eternal life, tbe Great Teacher told him bow be could do so, and tbe young ruler told Christ that be bad done all of tbe things enumerated, and asked tbe Master, 'What lacketb I now?’ and tbe Great Teacher told him what be should do in addition to what be bad done. I m',ost respectfully contend that I have done what is laid down in tbe statutes in cases of tbis kind, and I most respectfully ask tbis Court, ‘What lacketb I now V ” In tbe first place, tbe plaintiff “lacks” an accurate reference to tbe rich young ruler as will appear from an examination of tbe record. Mark, 10 :17-23; Luke, 18:18-23. Tbe Biblical record discloses that tbe rich young ruler lacked only one thing; while, on the other band, the title of plaintiff lacks several essentials to a valid tax title. 1st. There is no notice to tbe mortgagee Banton or Holloway, Murphy & Co. as required by statute. Tbe assignment of tbe mortgage, not purporting to act upon tbe land, does not pass tbe estate of tbe mortgagee in tbe land. C. S., 8028; Williams v. Teachey, 85 N. C., 402; Weil v. Davis, 168 N. C., 298; Banks v. Sauls, 183 N. C., 165; Trust Co. v. White, 189 N. C., 281; Collins v. Dunn, 191 N. C., 429; Price v. Slagle, 189 N. C., 757. 2nd. Tbe certificate of tbe city tax collector contained no sufficient description of tbe land as required by statute. Collins v. Dunn, 191 N. C., 429. 3rd. Tbe affidavit of tbe plaintiff does not sufficiently describe tbe land as required by law, tbe only description of tbe land in tbe affidavit being “land of Fred I. Jones.” Collins v. Dunn, 191 N. C., 429; Price v. Slagle, 189 N. C., 757. *253 4tb. There is’ no evidence of proper statutory notice to the defendant, Victoria Jones. The receipt of a registered package alone, and without evidence that the package contained the alleged notice, is insufficient. Collins v. Dunn, 191 N. C., 429. The Biblical record in Luke, 18:18-23, states that when the rich young ruler heard the words of the Master “he was very sorrowful; for he was very rich.” In the case under consideration, if the plaintiff is sorrowful, by reason of this decision, it is because he has failed to observe and strictly comply with the statutes determining the validity of tax titles. Affirmed.