
    WILLIAM M. TANKARD v. SALLIE A. TANKARD and others.
    
      Practice — Issues—Inconsistent Findings — New\ Trial.
    
    1. Where the issues submitted to the jury ou the trial in the Court, below were confused, it was not error to set aside the verdict and order a new trial.
    2. Where in an action to recover land, the replication of the plaintiff admitted the open and notorious possession of defendants’ ancestor when plaintiff purchased, and on the trial the jury found that defendants’ ancestor had certain equitable rights against plaintiff’s vendor, and also found-that the plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice : It was held, thát the possession of defendants’ ancestor was actual notice to plaintiff of his equities in the land; and that the facts admitted and the findings of the jury were inconsistent and contradictory, and a new trial was properly ordered.
    
      (Edwards v. Thompson, 71 N. C. 177, cited and approved.)
    Civil ActioN to recover Land, tried at Spring Term, 1878, of Beaufort Supérior Court, before Henry, J.
    
    The facts statecHn-the opinion are deemed sufficient to present the points decided by this Court. The plaintiff moved for judgment, but His Plonor held that the issues wére confused and that he could not render judgment thereon, and ordered them to be reformed and granted a. new trial, from which ruling the plaintiff appealed.
    
      
      Messrs. J. E. Shepherd and G. H. Brown, Jr., for plaintiff.
    
      Mr. JD. M. Carter, for defendants.
   Faircloth, J.

His Honor ordered a new trial on the ground that the issues were confused, and he could render no judgment. From this order the plaintiff appealed, and says he is entitled to a judgment according to the verdict on the second and third issues, notwithstanding the verdict on the other issues and the facts admitted in the pleadings. Some of the issues submitted were badly constructed, and, with a single response, are without meaning.. For example — “Did said O. H. P. Tankard purchase said land for benefit of said Ransom Tankard, and his family, under an agreement with Ransom to that effect, and did said Ransom remain in possession under that agreement as long as he lived, or was the possession of said Ransom and his family permitted by said Oliver, as a gratuity on the part of said Oliver?” Answer — “ Yes.”

But this is not the principal difficulty in the way of the plaintiff. It appears from the findings on the issues that the vendor of the plaintiff in 1849 attended the sale of his brother’s land, and by his representations suppressed bidding, and by express agreement purchased the land in trust for the benefit of his brother and family, and if we under-stance the substance of the findings, this agreement and understanding existed between the two brothers until Ransom’s death, in 1872.

The verdict on the second and third issues, on which plaintiff demands judgment, is, that the plaintiff’s vendor has not been paid the purchase money and charges on the land, and that the plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser for value, and without notice of defendants’ equities. The plaintiff purchased in 1869. It is admitted by plaintiff in his replication that said Ransom was in possession of the land, cultivating and otherwise using it from 1849 until his death in 1872, and that since his death the defendants have used it in the saíne way, and this is substantially the findingof the jury on other issues. Here., then, was notice to the plaintiff at the time he purchased, of an actual possession by a third person, which gave him notice of all the equities of such third person. In Edwards v. Thompson, 71 N. C. 177, it was held-by this Court that the possession of a tenant was notice of the landlord’s equities to the.purchaser, although he lived in another State and did not in fact have knowledge of the tenant’s possession. Open,-notorious, and exclusive possession puts a purchaser upon inquiry, and is notice of every fact which he could have learned by inquiry. The plaintiff therefore was a purchaser with notice of the defendants’ ancestors’ equitabld rights to redeem the land,'if in fact he had not made tlie payments, and still on the third issue the finding is that the plaintiff purchased without notice. We agree with His Honor not only that the issues were confused, but that the findings and facts admitted were inconsistent and contradictory, and that a new trial was properly ordered.

No error.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.  