Bunn v. Harris

10 Citing cases

  1. Edwards v. Edwards

    251 N.C. App. 549 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 4 times

    Our Supreme Court has held that ad valorem tax records are not competent to establish the market value of real property. Star Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. , 222 N.C. 330, 332–33, 23 S.E.2d 32, 36 (1942) ; Bunn v. Harris , 216 N.C. 366, 373, 5 S.E.2d 149, 153 (1939) ; Hamilton v. Seaboard , 150 N.C. 193, 194, 63 S.E. 730, 730 (1909) ; Cardwell v. Mebane , 68 N.C. 485, 487 (1873) ("The ‘tax lists’ [are] not competent evidence to show the value of the land[.]");see also Craven County v. Hall , 87 N.C.App. 256, 258, 360 S.E.2d 479, 480 (1987).

  2. Vine Street Corp. v. City of Council Bluffs

    220 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 1974)   Cited 30 times
    Holding evidence of assessed value of condemned property was relevant in condemnation proceeding because both valuations were based on the "[f]air and reasonable market value" of the property

    See United States v. Anderson, 447 F.2d 833 (8 Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 918, 92 S.Ct. 943, 30 L.Ed. 2d 788; United States v. Certain Parcels of Land, etc., 261 F.2d 287 (4 Cir. 1958); State v. 45,621 Square Feet of Land, 475 P.2d 553 (Alas. 970); Chicago E.R. Co. v. Smith, 6 Ind. App. 262, 33 N.E. 241 (1893); Love v. Common School District No. 28, 192 Kan. 780, 391 P.2d 152 (1964); Scott v. O'Neil's Admr., 23 Ky.Law Rep. 331, 62 S.W. 1042 (1901); Bergen County Sewer Au. v. Borough of Little Ferry, 15 N.J. Super. 43, 83 A.2d 4 (1951); Bunn v. Harris, 216 N.C. 366, 5 S.E.2d 149 (1939); Girard Trust Co. v. Philadelphia, 248 Pa. 179, 93 A. 947 (1915); Edmondson v. Carroll, 65 S.W.2d 1107 (Tex.Civ.App. 1933). We follow the same rule. Dudley v. Minnesota N.W. Ry. Co., 77 Iowa 408, 42 N.W. 359 (1889).

  3. Murphy v. Hovis

    144 S.E.2d 260 (N.C. 1965)   Cited 1 times

    In Aman v. Walker, 165 N.C. 224, 81 S.E. 162, it is stated: "If the conveyance is upon a valuable consideration and made with the actual intent to defraud creditors upon the part of the grantor alone, not participated in by the grantee and of which intent he had no notice, it is valid." See Bunn v. Harris, 216 N.C. 366, 5 S.E.2d 149. Whether adequate or inadequate, the evidence discloses the consideration for said deed was "a valuable consideration."

  4. McKay v. Bullard

    219 N.C. 589 (N.C. 1941)   Cited 13 times

    This charge is correct, but it is no evidence of value. Bunn v. Harris, 216 N.C. 366 (373). The defendant contended that the court erred in charging the jury, "You should find to be a fair and reasonable value of the property during the time that it has been wrongfully detained or withheld by the defendant Bullard, whatever you find to be a fair allowance or reasonable rental during the time he has had it in possession."

  5. Peterson v. Power Co.

    111 S.E. 8 (N.C. 1922)   Cited 12 times
    In Peterson v. Power Co., 183 N.C. 243, 111 S.E. 8, plaintiff's cottage was destroyed by fire "an hour or two" after defendant's employees had connected gas fixtures inside with the main outside.

    STACY, J., took no part in the consideration and decision of this case. Cited: Lawrence v. Power Co., 190 N.C. 669; Bunn v. Harris, 216 N.C. 373; Mfg. Co. v. R. R., 222 N.C. 332; Frazier v. Gas Co., 247 N.C. 259; Austin v. Austin, 252 N.C. 288; Drum v. Bisaner, 252 N.C. 310; Patton v. Dail, 252 N.C. 429; Jenkins v. Electric Co., 254 N.C. 566.

  6. Aman v. Walker

    165 N.C. 224 (N.C. 1914)   Cited 48 times
    In Aman, the North Carolina Supreme Court stated, "If the conveyance is voluntary, and the grantor did not retain property fully sufficient and available to pay his debts then existing, it is invalid as to creditors...."

    Modified and affirmed. Cited: Garland v. Arrowood, 117 N.C. 374 (2g); Sutton v. Wells, 177 N.C. 527 (2g); Bank v. Pack, 178 N.C. 391 (2g); Tire Co. v. Lester, 190 N.C. 414, 417 (2g); Wallace v. Philips, 195 N.C. 671 (2g); Bank v. Mackorell, 195 N.C. 744 (2g); Rhodes v. Tanner, 197 N.C. 462 (2f); Bank v. Finch, 202 N.C. 295 (2g); Theiling v. Wilson, 203 N.C. 810 (1f); Foster v. Moore, 204 N.C. 12 (2g); Dillard v. Walker, 204 N.C. 70 (2g); Bunn v. Harris, 216 N.C. 372 (2g).

  7. Best v. Staton

    271 N.C. App. 181 (N.C. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    This is so because, as our Supreme Court has explained, "in the valuation of [ ] land for taxation the owner is not consulted ... It is well understood that it is the custom of the assessors to fix a uniform rather than an actual valuation." Bunn v. Harris , 216 N.C. 366, 373, 5 S.E.2d 149, 153 (1939). We note, though, that the tax value of real property "may be considered by the fact-finder if its introduction is not properly objected to. "

  8. Dellinger v. Lincoln Cnty.

    266 N.C. App. 275 (N.C. Ct. App. 2019)

    Concerning the use of Clay County property tax records to support a decline in valuation, "[o]ur Supreme Court has held that ad valorem tax records are not competent to establish the market value of real property." Edwards v. Edwards , 251 N.C. App. 549, 551, 795 S.E.2d 823, 825 (2017) (citing Star Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. , 222 N.C. 330, 332-33, 23 S.E.2d 32, 36 (1942) ; Bunn v. Harris , 216 N.C. 366, 373, 5 S.E.2d 149, 153 (1939) ; Hamilton v. Seaboard , 150 N.C. 193, 194, 63 S.E. 730, 730 (1909) ; Cardwell v. Mebane , 68 N.C. 485, 487 (1873) ).The admitted opinions and reports of the expert appraisers were also misconstrued or ignored.

  9. Medlin v. Medlin

    No. COA17-425 (N.C. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2017)

    Tax records are not favored "because 'in the valuation of land, for taxation, the owner is not consulted[,]' and 'the assessors were not witnesses in the case, sworn and subject to cross-examination[.]' " Id. at ___, 795 S.E.2d at 825 (quoting Bunn v. Harris, 216 N.C. 366, 373, 5 S.E.2d 149, 153 (1939) and Cardwell v. Mebane, 68 N.C. 485, 487 (1873)) (alteration omitted). Nonetheless, this Court has held that evidence of a property's tax value is properly relied upon where neither party has objected to its admission.

  10. Craven County v. Hall

    87 N.C. App. 256 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that landowner's "son should have been permitted to give his opinion as to the value of the property"

    Defendants should have been allowed to present this evidence to the jury. Ad valorem tax records have historically been held incompetent as evidence of value of real property. Star Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 222 N.C. 330, 23 S.E.2d 32 (1942); Bunn v. Harris, 216 N.C. 366, 5 S.E.2d 149 (1939). In R.R. v. Land Co., 137 N.C. 330, 49 S.E. 350 (1904), the plaintiff sought to introduce the tax list to show the value of the land condemned for a railroad right of way. The Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of the tax list for that purpose and stated the reason for the rule as follows: