Carson v. . Jenkins

Stacy, C. J. It is not perceived upon what theory the plaintiff is entitled to eject the defendants from the land in question or to recover damages. He shows no present title, legal or equitable, in himself or in the North Wilkesboro' Academical and Industrial Institute, which is not a party. At most, he alleges that many years ago the said institute owned the locus in quo, and, when in active existence, certain courses were there taught Negro youths, which he is now desirous of pursuing. Upon these allegations, he demands possession of the land and damages for its detention. It is elementary that, in ejectment, the plaintiff must rely upon the strength of his own title, and not upon the weakness of his adversary’s. Rumbough v. Sackett, 141 N. C., 495, 54 S. E., 421. To recover in such action, the plaintiff must show title good against the world, or good against the defendant by estoppel. Mobley v. Griffin, 104 N. C., 112, 10 S. E., 142. It can make no difference whether the defendant has title or not, the only inquiry being whether plaintiff has it, and upon this issue the plaintiff must assume the burden of allegata as well as of probata. Hayes v. Cotton, 201 N. C., 369, 160 S. E., 453; Timber Co. v. Cozad, 192 N. C., 40, 133 S. E., 173; Pope v. Pope, 176 N. C., 283, 96 S. E., 1034. It appears upon the face of the complaint that it is fatally defective. C. S., 511. The demurrer was properly sustained. Affirmed.