Morehead v. Hall

• Decision Date: 10 March 1903
• Citation: 43 S.E. 542,132 N.C. 122
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: MOREHEAD et al. v. HALL et al.

43 S.E. 542

132 N.C. 122

MOREHEAD et al.

v.HALL et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 10, 1903.

EJECTMENT — GRANT UNREGISTERED WHEN SUIT WAS COMMENCED.

1. Plaintiff could not maintain ejectment where, when the action was commenced, a grant from the state, through which he claimed, had not been registered, though it had been registered at the time of trial; Acts 1901, c. 175, providing that all grants required to be registered within a specified time may be registered at any time within three years from January 1, 1901, notwithstanding that the times specified have expired, etc., not being intended to change the rule that in ejectment plaintiff must prove title at the time of commencement of the suit.

Appeal from superior court, Carteret county; Brown, Judge.

Action by John L. Morehead and others against David B. Hall and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Simmons & Ward, for appellants.

W. W. Clark, for appellees.

MONTGOMERY, J. When this action was commenced on the 4th of September, 1897, the plaintiffs' sole claim to the land in dispute was through an unregistered grant from the state to John Benthall, dated October 30, 1765. At the time of the trial of the action, fall term, 1902, of the superior court of Carteret county, the plaintiffs offered that grant, which had been registered since the commencement of the action, to wit, on the 24th day of October, 1899, in evidence in support of their title. The evidence was rejected upon the objection of the defendant, and an exception entered by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then tendered to the court a complete chain of title from John Benthall to them, and tendered evidence to identify the land in said grant and in the mesne conveyances to the plaintiffs as the locus in quo, and tendered evidence to show that the defendants were in possession of the locus in quo at the time of the commencement of theaction; but stated that they could not show possession in the plaintiffs, and those under whom the plaintiffs claimed, for a sufficient time, in the absence of the grant, to perfect title in the plaintiffs. A nonsuit was suffered by the plaintiffs on intimation from the court that they could not recover.

The last act of assembly extending the time for registration of grants, except the one of 1901, to be hereinafter referred to, was the one of the 27th of January, 1893, the expiration of the time being the 1st day of January, 1894. It is to be observed that the registration of the grant was without authority of law, but the plaintiffs contend that the act of...