Collins v. . Dunn , 191 N.C. 429 ( 1926 )

Per Curiam.

Tbe evidence offered by plaintiffs was sufficient to sustain tbe allegations of their complaint. There was no error in tbe refusal of tbe court to allow tbe motion of defendant for judgment of nonsuit, at tbe close of tbe evidence. Tbe legal title to tbe land was in John G. Dawson, trustee, for tbe bolder of tbe notes secured therein; there was no evidence that tbe notes bad been paid or discharged. Tbe demurrer ore tenus for misjoinder of parties and because the complaint did not state a cause of action cannot be sustained.

Evidence offered by defendant, Dunn, to sustain his contentions that he is the owner of the land by virtue of a deed executed by the city tax collector of the city of Kinston was not of sufficient probative force to show compliance by him, as purchaser at the tax sale, with the provisions of the statute, relative to notice. C. S., 8028. There was no evidence of notice to John Gr. Dawson, trustee, who held the legal title to the land, or to Plato Collins, the payee named in the notes secured in the deed of trust. There is no contention that notice was served on the trustee; he testified that no notice was given to him by Dunn or by any one else that the land had been sold for taxes. The receipt for a registered package, signed in the name of Mr. Collins, by his wife, conceding that it is evidence that Mr. Collins received the package, proves nothing more; defendant offered no evidence as to the contents of the package. Mr. Collins testified that he had no notice of the sale of the land for taxes. The receipted bill for the publication of a notice in the Kinston Free Press, at most, is evidence only that some notice published in said paper, was paid for by Dunn; there was no evidence as to what the notice was. The affidavit offered by defendant,’ was to the effect that he had purchased “the land of Prank Murrill at a sale” made by the city tax collector on 6 June, 1923; this was not a sufficient description of the land, nor is the description of the land in the certificate of the city tax collector, to wit: ‘1 lot of land listed by Frank. Murrill,’ ” sufficient. Defendant offered no evidence in aid of the description in the certificate or in the affidavit.

There is no error in the charge of the court; assignments of error based upon exceptions to portions of the charge as indicated are not sustained. The judgment must be

Affirmed.