Faison v. Kelly

11 Citing cases

  1. Comrs. of Roxboro v. Bumpass

    237 N.C. 143 (N.C. 1953)   Cited 8 times

    While this principle has been invoked under varying circumstances, it is ordinarily, if not exclusively, applied in cases where the occupant is in possession under the bona fide belief that he is the owner. Faison v. Kelly, 149 N.C. 282. In this State this phase of the law controlling the right of the occupant, holding under color of title believed to be good, to claim compensation for improvements of a permanent nature before surrendering possession to the holder of a superior title was reduced to statutory form in 1871.

  2. Murrell v. Stock Growers' Nat. Bk. of Cheyenne

    74 F.2d 827 (10th Cir. 1934)   Cited 21 times

    Likewise the right of the life tenant to reimbursement for permanent improvements already made, was a question which the state court had the power to decide. See Faison v. Kelly, 149 N.C. 282, 62 S.E. 1086.

  3. Homes, Inc. v. Holt

    266 N.C. 467 (N.C. 1966)   Cited 28 times
    In Beacon Homes, the plaintiff contractor entered into a contract with the defendant’s mother to build a house on property that the mother represented she owned.

    Commissioners of Roxboro v. Bumpass, 237 N.C. 143, 74 S.E.2d 436. It applies only where the improvement was constructed by one who was in possession of the land under color of title and who, in good faith and reasonably, believed he had good title to the land. Pamlico County v. Davis, 249 N.C. 648, 107 S.E.2d 306; Harrison v. Darden, 223 N.C. 364, 26 S.E.2d 860; Rogers v. Timberlake, 223 N.C. 59, 25 S.E.2d 167; Faison v. Kelly, 149 N.C. 282, 62 S.E. 1086. In Rhyne v. Sheppard, 224 N.C. 734, 32 S.E.2d 316, the plaintiff having acquired title to two lots in a real estate development, in good faith built a house on two other lots, believing them to be the lots described in his deed. He sued the true owner of the lots for the value of the improvement.

  4. Barrett v. Williams

    16 S.E.2d 405 (N.C. 1941)   Cited 4 times

    In directing an answer to the 5th issue, the court held as a matter of law that the defendants were estopped by the record herein from asserting any claim for betterments. The ruling seems to have been an inadvertence, Pritchard v. Williams, 176 N.C. 108, 96 S.E. 733, on rehearing 178 N.C. 444, 101 S.E. 85; S.C., 181 N.C. 46, 106 S.E. 144; Faison v. Kelly, 149 N.C. 282, 62 S.E. 1086, though not necessarily fatal. Foxman v. Hanes, 218 N.C. 722, 12 S.E.2d 258; Rankin v. Oates, 183 N.C. 517, 112 S.E. 32. "A new trial will not be granted when the action of the trial judge, even if erroneous, could by no possibility injure the appellant."

  5. Pritchard v. Williams

    176 N.C. 108 (N.C. 1918)   Cited 21 times

    There are many cases where it has been held that although aware of an adverse claim, the possessor may have reasonable and strong grounds to believe such claim to be destitute of any just or legal foundation, and so be a possessor in good faith, and as such entitled to compensation for improvements. The principle here declared has been recognized and applied by this Court in Alston v. Connell, 145 N.C. 6, and Faison v. Kelly, 149 N.C. 282, as well as by the Courts of other States. Tumbleston v. Rumple, 43 S.C. 275; Templeton v. Lowry, 22 S.C. 389; Parrish v. Jackson, 69 Tex. 614; Gaither v. Hamrick, 69 Tex. 92; Elam v. Parkhill, 60 Tex. 581; Hutchins v. Bacon, 46 Tex. 408; Dorn v. Dunham, 24 Tex. 366; Hairston v. Sneed, 15 Tex. 307; Sartain v. Hamilton, 12 Tex. 219 (62 Anno. Dec., 524); Griswold v. Brugy, 6 Fed., 342; Cahill v. Benson, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 40; Whitney v. Richardson, 31 Vt. 300.

  6. Pendleton v. Williams

    95 S.E. 500 (N.C. 1918)   Cited 19 times

    Northcott v. Northcott, ante, 148; Merritt v. Scott, 81 N.C. 385; unless when they were made such life tenants held the property under the fair and reasonable belief that he owned the same in fee. Faison v. Kelly, 149 N.C. 282. On the record, however, we do not think this objection is open to appellants; in fact, we do not understand that they now make it, and this on the ground that they joined in the complaint alleging that these betterments were justly due the claimants.

  7. Alston v. Connell

    58 S.E. 441 (N.C. 1907)   Cited 1 times

    CLARK, C. J., did not sit. Cited: Faison v. Kelly, 149 N.C. 284.

  8. Faison v. Odom

    56 S.E. 793 (N.C. 1907)   Cited 14 times
    In Faison v. Odom, 144 N.C. 108, a devise "for the use and benefit of my son Edward during his life, and after the death of my son Edward to his issue forever, in case of his death without leaving issue, I give, devise, and bequeath unto his surviving brothers and their heirs, and in case of their death before him and leaving children, to such issue and their heirs"; it is held that the word "issue" here means children from the construction placed on the word by the testator himself, "such issue" being a correlative term for children.

    New trial. Cited: Faison v. Kelly, 149 N.C. 284; Ford v. McBrayer, 171 N.C. 423. (110)

  9. R. R. v. McCaskill

    98 N.C. 526 (N.C. 1887)   Cited 19 times
    In R. R. v. McCaskill, 94 N.C. 751, Chief Justice Smith, discussing this question, says: "In whomsoever the estate was vested, there being no suggestion that they were under disabilities, it was, under the statute, as soon as the road was construed, and toties quoties as it progressed towards conclusion, transferred to the corporation, of the required width of 100 feet on either side, to be paid for as directed, when no (364) written contract has been entered into for the purchase.

    Affirmed. Cited: Johnson v. Allen, 100 N.C. 139; Gudger v. R. R., 106 N.C. 484; Purifoy v. R. R., 108 N.C. 106; Faison v. Kelly, 149 N.C. 285.

  10. Justice v. Baxter

    93 N.C. 405 (N.C. 1885)   Cited 9 times
    In Justice v. Baxter, 93 N.C. 405 (409), it is said: "It is in just such contingencies, when the ameliorating work has been done bona fide and under the honest belief of having title, that the statute interposes and says to the true owner, you are entitled to your land, but it is inequitable for you with it to take the enhance value of the expenditure and labor of another honestly put upon it."

    Error. Reversed. Cited: Barker v. Owen, 93 N.C. 203; R. R. v. McCaskill, 98 N.C. 535; Wood v. Tinsley, 138 N.C. 513; Faison v. Kelly, 149 N.C. 285; Pritchard v. Williams, 176 N.C. 109; Davis v. Robinson, 189 N.C. 601.