Clayton v. . Cagle

Smith, C. J., (after stating the facts). I. The deed in trust is not in form and effect that of the corporation, so as to transfer its equitable estate, arising out of the making of the title bond, to the trustee. It is the personal act of the president, its chief officer, and if effectual at all, can only pass his interest in the property. Ins. Co. v. Hicks, 3 Jones, 58; Davidson v. Alexander, 84 N. C., 621. II. If the deed were in form a corporate act, it has not been executed bjr the company either in the manner authorized by the common law, or under the provisions of the statute then in force. Rev. Code, ch. 26, §32. The essential conditions required to make effectual a conveyance of real estate owned by a corporation, have been sufficiently pointed out in the recent case of Bason v. Mining Co., 90 N. C., 417, and need no further elucidation or comment. The case presented in the facts then is simply this: III. The plaintiff claims, as a secured creditor, a lien upon the land by virtue of the deed to Williams, made in April, *303 1851, and a right to have it sold for the satisfaction of his •demand. The defendant holds under an absolute conveyance from Moore and Patton to himself, executed in 1863, and his possession and exercise of exclusive proprietary rights over the property ever since, without interruption from others. Most undoubtedly the latter must prevail, there being no suggestion of any disability resting upon the depositary and owner of the legal title. The annexation of trusts to the legal estate, cannot arrest the operation of the rule which, under the circumstances, ripens an imperfect into a perfect title, since during all this period the defendant was exposed to the action of the true owner, and his negligence in bringing it tolls his entry and bars his right of action. Rev. Code, ch. 65, §1, repeated in The Code, §145. The interest of the cestui qui trust is, as against strangers to the deed, under the protection of the trustee, and shares the fate that befalls the legal estate by his inaction or indifference. Hill Trustees, *267; Wood Lim., §208; Ang. Lim., §390. The principle has been distinctly adjudged in this Court. Wellborn v. Finley, 7 Jones, 228; Herndon v. Pratt, 6 Jones Eq., 327; Blake v. Allman, 5 Jones Eq., 407; Clayton v. Rose, 87 N. C., 110. We therefore sustain the ruling of the Court, and affirm the judgment. No error. Affirmed.