Hare v. Hollomon

• Decision Date: 28 February 1886
• Citation: Hare v. Hollomon, 94 N C. 14 (N.C. 1886)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: JACKSON B. HARE v. JESSE HOLLOMON et als.

94 N.C. 14

JACKSON B. HARE

v.JESSE HOLLOMON et als.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February Term, 1886.

CIVIL ACTION, tried before McKoy, Judge, and a jury, at July Special Term, 1884, of HERTFORD Superior Court.

This was a civil action, prosecuted under a claim of title for the recovery of the possession of the land described in the complaint and withheld by the defendants. It was in evidence that the land formerly belonged to one Josiah Bridgers, who, at his death, in May, 1831, devised the same, subject to the life estate therein of his surviving widow, Charlotte, to John P. Bridgers. The life tenant died in March, 1869, whereupon the plaintiff immediately entered upon the premises, claiming to be owner of the estate in remainder, by virtue of a deed of conveyance made to him on October 20th, 1868, by Timothy Q. Copeland and wife Irene, and continued in the occupation and use thereof until November, 1881, when, without legal process, he was ejected by some of the defendants, all of whom have since remained in possession. John P. Bridgers died intestate, early in 1854, leaving the feme defendants Sarah E. and Margaret C., Mary Bridgers, who has since died without issue, Joseph P. Bridgers, John C. Bridgers, and William Bridgers, his children and only heirs at law.

In deducing title from the said John P. Bridgers, the plaintiff introduced from the clerk's office, a bound volume, which purported to contain the records of the county Court of Hertford, from February Term, 1854, to August Term, 1867, and proposed to read therefrom the following entries, as of May Term, 1856:

“Letters of administration on the estate of John P. Bridgers are granted to William Dunning, to whom special letters of administration on said estate have been granted since the last term of this Court, who entered into bond for the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars with William W. Mitchell, Pleasant Jordan and John A. Anderson, sureties thereto, which bond is accepted by the Court, and he duly qualified as administrator by taking the oath required by law.”

+----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦

“WILLIAM DUNNING, administrator of¦)¦
                +--------------------------------------------------+-¦
                ¦JOHN P. BRIDGERS, deceased,                       ¦)¦
                +--------------------------------------------------+-¦
                ¦against                                           ¦)¦
                +--------------------------------------------------+-¦
                ¦JOSEPH P. BRIDGERS and others, heirs              ¦)¦
                +--------------------------------------------------+-¦
                ¦at law of JOHN P. BRIDGERS.                       ¦)¦
                +----------------------------------------------------+
                

Petition for the sale of land as assets in the administrator's hands. L. M. Cowper is appointed guardian ad litem to the defendants, who accepts service of the petition and submits to a decree.”

“It appearing to the Court that the personal estate of John P. Bridgers is insufficient to pay his debts and charges of administration, it is decreed that William Dunning, his administrator, have a license to sell the land mentioned in the petition, on a credit of six months, on the premises, after advertising the same according to law, in order to pay the debts of his intestate and the charges of administration; and that the petitioner make title to the purchaser when the purchase money is paid.”

“Issued copy of decree.”

It was shown by the present clerk, and others, that the book had been always kept in his office, as a record of the county Court, and was so treated; that the entries were all in the hand writing of L. M. Cowper, who was, in 1856, and had been many years before, clerk of that Court. It was also proved that the court-house had been twice burned--once in August, 1831, and again in the year 1862.

The introduction of this evidence was opposed by the defendants, but admitted by the Court, and exceptions entered. The plaintiff then produced a deed from William Dunning, administrator of John P. Bridgers, made June 10th, 1857, to one Kindred Copeland; a deed from William M. Montgomery, Clerk and Master in Equity of said county, executed on May 1st, 1862, to Timothy Q. Copeland, and a deed from Timothy Q. Copeland and wife Irene, to himself, the plaintiff, dated on October 28th, 1868. These deeds were all duly proved and registered, and describe and purport to convey the tract of land in dispute. The first mentioned deed contains a recital in these words:

“That, whereas, the said William Dunning, administrator as aforesaid, by authority of a decree of the County Court of Hertford, at August Term, 1856, last past, directing the said William Dunning, administrator as aforesaid, to advertise and make sale of a certain tract or parcel of land, which the said John P. Bridgers died seized and possessed,” &c., describing the tract, “which, reference being had to said order and decree, will more fully and at large appear; and whereas, the said William Dunning, administrator as aforesaid, and by virtue and authority of said decree, did, on the 10th day of October last past, on the premises, after advertising agreeably to act of Assembly, offer the aforesaid tract or parcel of land for sale, at public auction, on a credit of six months, when the said Kindred Copeland appeared and bid the sum of twelve hundred and fifty dollars, being the highest and best bidder, and so became the purchaser; and whereas, the said William Dunning, administrator as aforesaid, did, at May Term, 1857, last past, report to the said County Court of Hertford county, the sale of the land as aforesaid, when the said Court ratified the said sale, and further decreed that the said William Dunning, administrator as aforesaid, should make a deed to the said Kindred Copeland, which reference being had to said decree will more fully and at large appear. Now, this indenture witnesseth,” &c.

The second deed from the Clerk and Master in Equity recites:

“That, whereas, by virtue of a decree of the Court of Equity, obtained at Fall Term, 1860, by the heirs of Kindred Copeland, deceased, for the sale of certain real estate, of which the said Kindred Copeland died owning the same, but not in possession, and the clerk and master being authorized by said decree, did, on the 10th day of June, 1861, expose to public sale upon the premises, one tract of land lying in said county, adjoining,” &c., “which was purchased by the said Timothy Q. Copeland, for the sum of twelve hundred and fifty dollars, he being the last and highest bidder. Now, I, the said William M. Montgomery, clerk and master as aforesaid, for,” &c.

The last deed conveys the same land for the consideration of one thousand dollars to the plaintiff. It was shown that upon the death of Kindred Copeland, the land descended to Annie, who intermarried with Levi Davis, and W. A. Copeland, his heirs-at-law, and was sold for partition under a decree of the said Court of Equity. The feme defendants Parker and Hollomon, were married during the life of said Charlotte Bridgers, and before attaining full age, while the other heirs-at-law of John P. Bridgers each became twenty-one years of age before the plaintiff's eviction, and have been under no disability.

The defendants insisted that these fragmentary memoranda found upon the records of the former county Court, were insufficient proof of any judicial action, which could have the legal effect of divesting the estate which descended to the heirs-at-law of the intestate and transferring it to the purchaser at the administrator's sale. The Court declined so to charge, and left the inquiry, upon the evidence, to the jury, who rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs.

From the judgment rendered thereon the defendants appeal.

Mr. W. D. Pruden, for the plaintiff .

Messrs. Winborne and R. B. Peebles, for the defendants .

SMITH, C. J. (after stating the facts).

We sustain the ruling of the Court as to the admissibility of the record evidence of the proceeding instituted for the sale of the land, and the action of the Court t...