Case Name: In re Entry of D. A. HURLEY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1923-05-09
Citations: 185 N.C. 422
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re Entry of D. A. HURLEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 185
Pages: 422–423

Head Matter:
In re Entry of D. A. HURLEY.
(Filed 9 May, 1923.)
State’s Land — Entry—Protest—Statutes—Disclaimer in Part — Judgments —Costs.
The protestants, under the provisions of C. S., 7557, claimed the original entry, C. S., 7554, was not for the State’s vacant and unappropriated lands, but that they were the owners of the entire tract. After the evidence had been introduced, the protestant disclaimed ownership of half of the locus in quo. There.was no reversible error in the judgment in protestant’s favor. (Nelson v. Lmeker, 172 N. C., 279) ; but held, the enterer was entitled to judgment declaring the remainder of the lands covered by the entry to be vacant and unappropriated, and for costs. C. S., 1241.
Appeal by enterer from Finley, J-., at December Term, 1922, of RANDOLPH.
This was a proceeding of protest under the entry laws, C. S., 7557; and from a judgment in favor of protestants, the enterer, or claimant, appealed.
■J. A. Spence for enterer.
Hammer & Moser and- Brittain, Brittain & Brittain for protestants.

Opinion:
Stacy, J.
D. A. Hurley made entry to certain lands in Randolph County, under C. S., 1554, alleging tbe same to be vacant and unappropriated. Two separate protests were filed by tbe beirs of Ransom Lucas, under C. S., 1557, claiming title to each and every part of tbe lands covered by tbe entry. These protests were consolidated for tbe purpose of trial, and a survey of tbe lands was made under order of court.
On the bearing, and after the evidence was in, protestants orally entered a disclaimer to about one-balf of the lands covered by the entry. Their evidence showed that they were the owners of the other part, and the jury so found. With respect to the judgment entered in favor of protestants for the land which the jury found was covered by the deeds under which they claim, we have found no reversible error (Nelson v. Lineker, 172 N. C., 279); but we think .the enterer was entitled to judgment declaring the remainder of the lands covered by bis entry to be vacant and unappropriated, and for costs. Staley v. Staley, 174 N. C., 640. the protestants did not enter a disclaimer to the undisputed part of the land until after claimant bad gone to the trouble and expense of preparing for trial and having bis witnesses in court. In fact, the disclaimer was not entered until after the evidence bad been offered on the bearing. This was too late to save the costs, which, under C. S., 1241, the enterer is entitled to recover. Swain v. Clemmons, 175 N. C., 240; Bryan v. Hodges, 151 N. C., 413; Moore v. Angel, 116 N. C., 843. As thus modified, the judgment -will be affirmed.
Modified and affirmed.