This wаs an action to determine the title to certain lots in tbe city of Rocky Mount on West Thomas Street. It was established by the verdict of the jury that the plaintiffs James H. Boddie and Julia Boddie Galloway were the owners of the lot known and designated as No. 817, and that the plaintiffs and defendants as heirs of Arcenia Hopkins were tenants in common in the other adjoining lots described in the pleadings. The bone of contention was the title to lot No. 817. There was no controversy as to the title to the other lots.
These several lots had been originally conveyed to Arcеnia Hopkins in 1902. The plaintiffs’ evidence tended to show that in 1908 Arcenia Hopkins placed her daughter Arcenia Boddie and her husband Julius Boddie in рossession of lot No. 817, and that Arcenia Hopkins joined with them in building a house thereon in which the daughter and husband made their home and reared their children. In 1919 Arcenia Hopkins made a deed to Arcenia and Julius Boddie intending to convey this lot to them, but by some mistake, not discovered at thе time, the particular description of the lot did not include No. 817. Arcenia and Julius Boddie continued in the exclusive and undisturbed occupancy of this house and lot claiming it as their own, paying taxes, making additions, *501 and bolding adversely to Arcenia Hopkins and all others until the death of Arcenia Hopkins which occurred in 1925. Thereafter Arcenia and Julius Boddie continued in the exclusive possession of this house and lot, holding adversely to the heirs of Arcenia Hopkins, until the death of Arcenia Boddie in 1941. Julius Boddie had predeceased her. Thereafter plaintiffs Janies H. Bоddie and Julia Boddie Galloway, the only children and heirs of Arcenia and Julius Boddie, continued in possession of the house and lot, either oсcupying it or renting it, and have continued to do so up to the present time. This suit to clarify the title was instituted 5 May, 1950.
There was no exception tо the evidence or to the charge of the court to. the jury. The defendants noted exception to the denial of their motion for judgmеnt of nonsuit, but we think the evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury on the question of adverse possession and to support, thе verdict in favor of plaintiffs on this issue.
Plaintiffs’ claim of title was based on adverse possession for 20 years, under known and visible lines and boundaries. G.S. 1-40. Thе court properly submitted to the jury the question of whether the possession and occupancy of the house and lot by plaintiffs and thosе under whom they claim was permissive or adverse, and, if so, whether it was continually and exclusively maintained for the statutory period.
The evidence of the investiture of Arcenia Boddie and her husband in possession of this lot and of the execution of a deed intended by the-owner tо convey it to them, was properly submitted to the jury to be-considered with the other evidence of continuous and exclusive occupancy in the support of plaintiffs’ contention that possession thereafter by them and those to whom their right descended was adverse, аnd that it was maintained with intent to claim against the former owner and all other persons.
This was not a case of mistaken boundary, but on the contrary plaintiffs’ evidence tended to show claim of title as owners of a particular lot. ascertained under known and visible lines and boundaries.
Gibson v. Dudley,
But the plaintiffs in making out their case were unable to show adverse possession for a sufficient lеngth of time to ripen title before the death of Arcenia Hopkins in 1925, and could not in law under the circumstances of this case, tack that inаdequate period to their subsequently continued possession after her death, for the reason that their title to the house and
*502
lot not having ripened, upon the death of Arcenia Hopkins, in whom the title still remained, Arcenia and Julius Boddie became tenants in common with the othеr children of Arcenia Hopkins.
Brite v. Lynch, ante,
182,
Thereupon the possession of lot No. 817 by Arcenia and Julius Boddie and their successors by descent
(Boyce v. White,
However, we think there was evidence as found by the jury tending to show possession by Arcenia and Julius Boddie and by the plaintiffs James H. Boddie and Julia Boddie Galloway, their successors by descent, adverse to their cotenants and all others for more than 20 years, sufficient to ripen title аgainst those who were not under disability at the time the statute began to run.
There was no exception to the charge or request for further or more specific instructions on any phase of the evidence, and appellants’ assignments of error as to the judge’s charge сannot be upheld.
S. v. Warren,
All the defendants are of full age except the four children of Dorsey Battle who was a son of Arcenia Hopkins. These are represented by a guardian
ad litem,
who, after investigation, has admitted the facts alleged in the complaint. None of the children of Arcenia Hopkins were under disability at the time the statute of limitatiоns began to run against them. There is a well recognized rule that when the statute of limitations has begun to run no subsequent disability will interfere with it.
Cameron v. Hicks,
The motion for judgment of nonsuit was properly denied. No material or prejudicial error has been made to appear, and the result will not be disturbed except in respect to the rights of Henderson Battle as herein-pointed out. Judgment will be entered in accordance with this opinion.
Modified and affirmed.