
    R. P. TAYLOR et als. v. J. F. MEADOWS et als.
    (Filed 31 October, 1923.)
    Appeal and Error — Stare Decisis.
    Upon this fourth appeal: Held, there was no prejudicial error to the appellant in the rulings of law by the trial judge, which is substantially in accordance with the rulings of the decisions heretofore herein rendered by this Court.
    Appeal by defendants from Bond, J., at April Term, 1923, of GeaN-ville.
    This is the fourth time that this case, which began 3 April, 1914, has been before the Court. It was here previously, Taylor v. Meadows, 169 N. 0., 124; 175 N. C., 373; 182 N. 0., 266.
    On the first appeal it was held error to charge that E. P. Taylor could not recover his share in the disputed lot as one of the heirs at law of his father, Dr. L. 0. Taylor, if his wife, who had purchased at a mortgage sale, should fail to recover. On the second trial, the devisees of Dr. Taylor and the heirs of himself and wife, to whom he conveyed a two-thirds interest in the land, were made parties plaintiff and filed a complaint alleging that they were tbe owners of tbe land in dispute if tbe court should bold that tbe wife of R. P. Taylor was not tbe owner thereof.
    On this second trial, Connor, J., at first admitted the parol evidence of tbe defendants as to acts of user, and then, on motion of plaintiffs, excluded tbe same from tbe'consideration of tbe jury, who brought in a verdict for tbe plaintiffs. On appeal, this Court held that there was error in excluding this evidence.
    At tbe third trial, Horton, J., allowed defendants to introduce all their oral testimony, and tbe jury again brought in a verdict for tbe plaintiffs. On appeal, this Court held that tbe judge bad unduly emphasized tbe testimony of tbe court surveyor and sent tbe ease back for a new trial.
    On this fourth trial, nearly every possible proposition of law and of fact having been debated heretofore and on this trial, tbe jury again brought in a verdict for tbe plaintiff.
    It is admitted by both sides that Dr. L. C. Taylor was tbe ancestor in blood of all tbe plaintiffs except Mrs. Betty R. Taylor, who is tbe wife of bis son, and was tbe ancestor in title of both tbe plaintiffs and defendants, and that be formerly owned all tbe lands shown on tbe map by tbe court surveyor, Mr. Foster.
    Tbe land in controversy is a strip fronting on-Williamsboro Street, Oxford, 28 feet wide and 161 1-3 feet long. Tbe defendants in the answer do not deny tbe allegation in complaint that the annual rental value of tbe same is $25. Upon tbe issues submitted tbe court found that tbe plaintiffs were entitled to tbe lafid in dispute and that the defendant, J". F. Meadows, is in wrongful possession. Judgment accordingly. Appeal by defendant.
    
      A. W. Graham & Son and D. G. Brummiit for plaintiffs.
    
    
      Hicks & Stem, Royster & Royster, T. T. Hicks & Son and Parham & Lassiter for defendants.
    
   Clark, 0. J.

Tbe case was elaborately and most ably argued in this Court, extra time being allowed for its consideration. It is tbe fourth time that tbe case has been presented here, and it is stated that it took four days for tbe trial below on tbe last occasion alone. There are numerous exceptions and, by very able briefs in addition to tbe oral argument, every possible contention was presented for our consideration. We do not think, however, that there is any new proposition of law presented whose restatement by the Court would be of service to litigants.

Tbe case having been tried three times before, nearly every question of law and of fact has been heretofore discussed, and the judge seems to have followed carefully the previous rulings of the Court in the matter. Indeed, on this appeal the argument seems to have almost entirely been a debate upon the facts, of which the jury are the proper and appropriate tribunal, and they have for the third time rendered their decision in favor of the plaintiffs. If there were any error of law committed we do not think that it was such as would have affected the verdict.

The jury on this trial had the law fairly and clearly placed before them by the judge in his ruling and in his charge, and every fact bearing upon the case was fully presented and doubtless carefully considered by the jury.

After a full and careful consideration of all the exceptions, upon the whole case, we think that substantial justice has been attained, and in the trial below we find

No error.  