Case Name: MECHANICS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. H. B. WHILDEN
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1912-05-28
Citations: 159 N.C. 280
Docket Number: 
Parties: MECHANICS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. H. B. WHILDEN.
Judges: Me. Justice Walkee concurs in this opinion.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 159
Pages: 280–283

Head Matter:
MECHANICS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. H. B. WHILDEN.
(Filed 28 May, 1912.)
1. Evidence — Title—Corners—Declarations.
In this controversy, involving title to lands, declarations as to certain corners material in establishing the location of the lands held incompetent under the decisions in Hemphill v. Hemphill, 138 N. C., 500, and D oh son v. Finley, 53 N. C., 499.
2. Equity — Cloud on Title — Description—Right of Action.
As the defendant’s deed, in any event, covers a part of the lands described in plaintiff’s deed, the right of plaintiff to maintain an action to remove a cloud from his title upon the ground that, according to the plaintiff, the defendant’s lines are outside of his deed, is not presented.
Bbown, J., concurring; Walkee, J., concurs in the concurring opinion.
Appeal by defendant from Webb, J., at Fall Term, 1911, of Graham.
This is an action to remove a cloud from title.
The plaintiff claims under a grant issued to F. H. Busbee, trustee, of date 18 August, 1885, and the defendant under a grant issued to D. F. Goodhue, of date 27 May, 1872, and both parties introduced evidence to sustain their respective claims.
The principal controversy between the parties is as to the location of the Goodhue grant, the plaintiff contending that its beginning corner is at H on the plat, in which event it would cover only'a small part of the land in the plaintiff’s grant, and the defendant contending that it is at A on the plat, which location would cover nearly all of the land in the plaintiff’s grant. There was a locust tree at A and one at H, and his Honor permitted a witness for the plaintiff to say that he had heard three persons say that the locust at H was a corner of the Goodhue tract, and the defendant excepted.
There was no evidence fixing the time when the declarations were made, or that those making them were disinterested, or that they were dead at the time of the trial.
There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ' and the defendant appealed.
W. T. Crawford and Felix E. Alley for plaintiff.
Bryson & Blade for defendant.

Opinion:
Allen, J.
The evidence of tbe declarations of certain persons as to tbe location of tbe Goodbue corner was incompetent because hearsay, and should have been excluded.
"Tbe restrictions on hearsay evidence of this character — declarations of an individual as to tbe location of certain lines and corners — established by repeated decisions, are: that tbe declarations be made ante litem motam; that tbe declarant be ' dead when they are offered, and that be was disinterested when they were made." Hemphill v. Hemphill, 138 N. C., 506.
None of these requirements were met by tbe plaintiff, and as tbe declarations are condemned under tbe general rule excluding hearsay evidence, it was its duty to prove tbe facts bringing tbe evidence within tbe exception.
In Dobson v. Finley, 53 N. C., 499, Chief Justice Pearson says: "In tbe latter, to wit, hearsay evidence, it is necessary as a preliminary to its admissibility to prove that tbe person whose statement it is proposed to offer in evidence is dead; not on tbe ground that tbe fact of bis being dead gives any additional force to tbe credibility of bis statement, but on tbe ground that if be be alive be should be produced as a witness"; and this language is quoted with approval in Shaffer v. Gaynor, 117 N. C., 15; Westfelt v. Adams, 131 N. C., 379, and Yow v. Hamilton, 136 N. C., 358.
Tbe question discussed by the defendant as to tbe right to maintain an action to remove a cloud from title, when tbe deeds of tbe defendant, if located according to tbe plaintiff's contention, are outside tbe lines of tbe plaintiff's deeds, is not presented, because the deeds of tbe defendant cover a part of tbe land in tbe .deeds of tbe plaintiff in any event.
For tbe error pointed out there must be a new trial.
New trial.