Case ID: scl_1/html/0364-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bay, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thompson against Bullock.
    An old deed of thirty years .standing, can deuce, '" ith-The execution imd-writing6 of the sab-scribing wit-ne-ses. It is provea that eoropanied^" dvnco'1 to'1" ístrnceUlofeXá judgment and execution, is not admissible. The record itself or cation^'oiMtj duuedbe in °"
    TRESPASS to try title to 800 acres of land on Pacolet fiver*
    
      Ramsay stated that the plaintiff claimed the premises in question, under conveyances from a certain James Huey, ^ate<^ °f August, 1791 ; that Huey claimed under one Clark, who was the original grantee. The grant to . o o o Clark, in 1755, was admitted. Next a deed from Clark to Huey, dated the 1st of December, 1763, was produced $ but 110 witnesses to prove the execution of it, or the hands writing of the subscribing witnesses. Ramsay, however, ur£ech that as this was an old deed, and upwards of thirty years’ standing, it ought to be received and read without , further proof; and cited Gilbert, 99. also Blackstone, to the s£ime point
    
      Harper, for the defendant,
    answered, that although an deed thirty years’ standing might, under some circumstances, be read in proof; yet it was only where possession had gone along with it; and that it was necessary to prove such possession before the deed could be read.
    
      The Court were of opinion, that some reasonable proof of possession ought to be given before the deed could be read. For the reason why the law permitted old deeds to be read in evidence without proof, or the contents of deeds supposed to be lost, or destroyed, to be supplied by other testimony, was, that the proof of such circumstances as could not well have happened without such deeds, was presumptive proof that the old deed is fair, or the one said to be lost, did once exist. Ccrwp. 110.
    Several witnesses were then called, who proved, that as long since as the year 1764 or 1765, the land was considered as the property of James Huey, the father of James Huey, under whom the plaintiff claims. That he let it out to tenants, who held under him. . And that Clark, in his life-time, had said he had sold the land to Huey ; and that Huey, and tenants under him, continued to occupy it from the year 1764 or 1765, to the year 1771.
    
      James Huey (after procuring a release from Thompson) also proved, that his father purchased the land from Clark, and Clark gave a bond to make titles, and afterwards went to the Mississippi, where he remained several years. That Clark afterwards returned; but in the mean time, hir: father had been killed by the Indians, and his mother married a second time to one Looney. That afterwards Looney, his father-in-law, got Clark to make titles to him, the witness, for the 800 acres of land, and took up his bond. That he was the eldest son of his father.
    After this testimony was given, the court permitted the old deed from Clark to Huey to be read.
    A deed from Huey to the plaintiff, dated in August, 1791, duly proved and recorded in Union county, was next read, which made a regular title in the plaintiff. Other witnesses were called to prove that James Huey, who conveyed to the plaintiff, was the eldest son and heir at law of his father, who purchased from Clark. So that whether the fee of the land was in the father or son, it was said the title was good.
    Here the direct testimony for the plaintiff closed.
    
      Harper, for the defendant,
    then stated, that the land in question is situated in that part of the state which was formerly supposed to be within the Norlh-Carolina boundary ; that the original grant was under the seal of North= Carolina; and that part of the county was supposed to be within its jurisdiction till the boundary-line between North and Souih-Carolina was run, when it was found to fall considerably to the southward of the line ; consequently, within the limits of Soaik-Carolma. That, however, while the lands were supposed to be within the jurisdiction of North-Carolina, a judgment was obtained in Tryon county, against Huey, and the deed in question seized and sold by the sheriff, as Huey's property, to satisfy that judgment. That a certain John Knuckles was the purchaser at the sheriff’s sale, who got the sheriff’s titles for the same. That? Knuckles conveyed to Zachariah Bullock, the father of the present defendant. He also stated that Huey, after the sheriff’s sale, gave a confirmatory deed for the lands, to Knuckles.
    
    The counsel then mentioned, that he had a witness to prove that there had been a judgment, in Try on county, against Huey ; in consequence of which an execution had issued, and the land sold ; and that the sheriff’s deed to Knuckles had been lost or destroyed.
    Calhoun, for the plaintiff,
    objected to this kind of testimony being given, as not being the highest the nature of the case would admit of, and
    
      The Court supported the objection, because the record of the judgment itself, or an exemplification of it, under the seal of the court in Tryon county, was the highest testimony, and ought to have been procured. And, moreover, that it was necessary to prove that there was such a judgment and execution, before the defendant could go into proof of a sheriff’s sale, and deed from him to Knuckles.
    
    The defendant then relied upon his deed, after this supposed sale from Huey to Knuckles. This, however, was rebutted by the plaintiff, who alleged that, at the time when this deed was given, Huey was under age, and' in some degree, forced to sign it. And to prove the nonage of Huey several witnesses were called.
    As, however, Huey himself had been sworn on the part of plaintiff, he was questioned by the defendant’s counsel as to this point, and answered, that, according to his mother’s account of his age, which he believes was a just one, he was under age — not more than nineteen or twenty when he signed the deed to Knuckles — and that he was forced to do it. Being asked what kind of a deed it was ? he said it was a bond to make titles. But afterwards, when he came of age, he got back his bond, from young Knuckles, the son and heir at law of old Knuckles, and by his consent made titles to Thompson, the, present plaintiff, in 1791.
    Three other witnesses were next called ; all of whom proved that Huey must have been a minor, under age at the time when this bond or deed was given to Knuckles.
    
    The defendant lastly relied upon possession •, and produced witnesses to prove that Major Bullock, his father, got possession in 1773, and kept it till he died, in 1791.
    Here the testimony on both sides was closed.
   Bay, J.

The fee of the land in dispute has been regularly traced from Clark to Huey, and from Huey to Thompson. On the part of the defendant two titles have been set up s First, a sheriff’s sale to Knuckles; secondly, a deed from Huey to Knuckles. The court has already given an opinion on this sheriff’s sale. No proof is now before the court respecting it: the jury, of course, can take no notice of it. With respect to the deed from Huey to Knuckles, it is clear law, that if he was under age at the time the deed was made, it is good for nothing. This must depend, however, upon the nature of the testimony given. It is a matter of fact for the consideration of the jury. But if they believe the witnesses on that head, there can be very little difficulty about it, as they all are clear that he was under age when this deed was made. But admitting that Huey was of age at the time this deed or bond was given, it has appeared in evidence that, after the death of old Knuckles, he made another deed of this land to the plaintiff, Thompson, by the consent and approbation of young Knuckles, heir at law of his father, who delivered him up his bond or deed to his father. And this last deed to Thompson is first on record ; and, consequently, will have a preference, under the act to prevent deceits by double conveyances, &c. As to the possession on the part of Major Bullock, which the defendant lastly relied on, it was not carried further back than the year 1773, and therefore cannot avail him i for it will not give him five years’ peaceable enjoyment (the time required in the statute) previous to the 1st of January, 1775.

Verdict for plaintiff, Si. with costs.