Newkirk v. Porter
| Decision Date | 19 May 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 596,596 |
| Parties | NEWKIRK et ux. v. PORTER et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Rountree & Rountree, Wilmington, and Wyatt E. Blake, Burgaw, for plaintiffs, appellants.
Leon H. Corbett and Harry T. Fisler, Burgaw, for defendants, appellees.
When the answers are read aright, they admit the plaintiffs' title to the tract of land described in paragraph 2 of the statement of facts. They merely put the actual location of the true dividing line between the plaintiffs' land and the tract claimed by the defendants in issue by alleging, in essence, that the disputed area is covered by the deeds of the defendants rather than the deeds of the plaintiffs. This being true, it was not obligatory for the plaintiffs to offer evidence sufficient to establish title by adverse possession or otherwise. But it was incumbent upon them to present testimony ample to show that the disputed area lies within the bounds of their track. Williamson v. Bryan, 142 N.C. 81, 55 S.E. 77.
The true dividing line between the plaintiffs' land and the tract claimed by the defendants is the defendants' northern line, which is thus defined in their deeds: 'Beginning at a red oak near the run of Moore's Creek, running south 88 east 375 poles to a stake in the back line.'
The plaintiffs assert with complete correctness that the disputed area necessarily lies within the bounds of their tract if the true dividing line is delineated upon the earth's surface by the large marked white oak tree standing 138 feet east of Moore's Creek and the succession of marked gumtrees.
The plaintiffs undertook to prove at the trial that the marked white oak and the succession of marked gums fix the actual location of the true dividing line upon the earth's surface. To this end, the plaintiffs introduced evidence ample to establish these propositions: First, that the 'red oak near the run of Moore's Creek' called for by the defendants' deeds had long since vanished from the earth leaving no reliable trace of its former location; and, second, that Edmond Newton, under whom the defendants claim, had declared, in substance, under the circumstances detailed by the witness W. A. Gurganous that the marked white oak and the succession of marked gums disclosed the actual location upon the earth's surface of the dividing line between the land now owned by the plaintiffs and the tract now claimed by the defendants.
This evidence is sufficient to support a finding by a jury that the disputed area lies within the bounds of the tract admittedly owned by the plaintiffs. As a consequence, it was error to nonsuit the action.
To be sure, it may be argued with much force that Edmond Newton's statement falls short of the requirements of the exception to the hearsay rule which admits declarations concerning private boundaries because it does not refer to a monument of boundary or a natural object called for in the deeds. Caldwell Land & Lumber Co. v. Triplett, 151 N.C. 409, 66 S.E. 343; Bland v. Beasley, 140 N.C. 628, 53 S.E. 443. Be that as it may, the statement satisfies the requirements of the independent rule governing admissions by predecessors in interest, which declares that 'any statement by a person holding or claiming an interest in property, which could have been used against him in litigation over such interest, is admissible to the same extent and for the same purposes against parties claiming under him.' Stansbury on North...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Stephens Co. v. Lisk
-
Hill v. Parker
...the cause of action will not be treated as ground for dismissal. Bailey v. McGill, 247 N.C. 286, 100 S.E.2d 860. See also Newkirk v. Porter, 240 N.C. 296, 82 S.E.2d 74; State v. Barley, 240 N.C. 253, 81 S.E.2d The judgment below is Reversed. PARKER, J., took no part in the consideration or ......
-
Andrews v. Bruton
...Carswell v. Town of Morganton, 236 N.C. 375, 72 S.E.2d 748. It is well to note that no issue of title was involved in Newkirk v. Porter, 240 N.C. 296, 82 S.E.2d 74. The sole issue was the location of the true dividing line between adjoining owners. Such is not the case here. Here defendant ......
-
Jones v. Arehart
...is competent against one who claims under him any interest in the land acquired since the declaration was made. Newkirk v. Porter, 240 N.C. 296, 302, 82 S.E.2d 74, 79 (1954). In the instant case, assuming for the sake of argument that Jones' statements to Wetzel constituted an admissible st......