Carden v. Mcconnell

• Decision Date: 14 May 1895
• Citation: 21 S.E. 923,116 N.C. 875
• Parties: CARDEN . v. McCONNELL.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

21 S.E. 923

116 N.C. 875

CARDEN .

v.McCONNELL.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 14, 1895.

Slander of Title—Parol Evidence.

In an action for slander of title, where it is alleged that defendant had, by misrepresenting plaintiff's title to land, prevented a written contract for the sale of the land between plaintiffand I. from being carried out, the contents of the contract (the contract being collateral to the gravamen of the charge, and material only as to the measure of damages) may be shown by parol.

Appeal from superior court, Clay county; Shuford, Judge.

Action by G. B. Carden against W. R. McConnell for slander of title. Prom a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

G. B. Carden, for appellant.

J. B. Batchelor, for appellee.

FURCHES, J. This is an action by plaintiff to recover damages for slander of his title to land. Plaintiff offered in evidence a deed from T. M. Ledford and wife to himself, and was then introduced to prove a sale of the land to one Isbell; and, on stating that the sale was in writing, the defendant objected to his speaking of the contents of the paper writing, and the objection was sustained. Plaintiff then introduced Isbell, who testified that he took the paper writing, and assigned it to one Hoffman, of Detroit, Mich. Plaintiff then offered to prove the contents of the paper writing. Defendant objected, and the objection was sustained. Plaintiff excepted to his honor's rulings, and submitted to a nonsuit, and appealed.

It is a well-settled principle of the law of evidence that where a transaction takes place between parties, which is reduced to writing, and signed by them (or it may be otherwise assented to by them), and an action is brought to enforce this transaction, the written evidence must be produced or accounted for before other evidence is admissible as to the transaction. This rule is put upon the ground that the parties have agreed that the writing shall be the evidence of their contract or transaction. This learning is too familiar to call for citations to support it. But this rule only obtains in actions between parties to the written evidence of the contract, and where its enforcement is the gravamen, —the grievance complained of, the substantial cause of the action. Burrill, Law Diet. 5G8; 1 Greenl. Ev. 366. This action is not between the same parties who made the written contract to sell the land. That was between the plaintiff and Isbell, and this action is between the plaintiff, Carden, and the...