Court Opinion

ID: 9810523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:52:28.635737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:59.341273
License: Public Domain

Brown, J.,
concurring: I concur in tbe ruling of tbe Court that tbe evidence of tbe declarations of certain witnesses admitted by tbe court as to tbe location of tbe Goodbue corner was incompetent as hearsay testimony and should' have been ex-*282eluded. But I am of opinion that instead of a new trial being ordered, tb© action should be dismissed.
The suit is one, according to the language of the complaint, brought to remove a cloud upon the plaintiff’s title, when in fact there is no cloud upon the title to the property claimed by him as located by the jury. The defendant claimed title under grant 3522, containing 640 acres. The plaintiff claimed title to his land under grant 7315.
The whole controversy was one of boundary and centered entirely upon the true beginning corner indicated by the letter “A” on the map, while the plaintiff contended that the beginning corner was not at “A,” but at the point indicated by the letter “H” on the map, and asked that grant 3522 be canceled as a cloud on plaintiff’s title. The two grants adjoined each other, and one could not possibly constitute a cloud upon the title to the other, since the only question involved was the true location of the two grants.
There is no question of lappage involved, and no claim that one grant, properly located, covers any part of the other grant. As commonly understood, a cloud on title to property is an outstanding claim or encumbrance, which if valid would impair the title of the owner of a particular estate, such as conveyance of the identical property or a part of it, or a mortgage, judgment, tax levy, etc. Black’s Law Dic. (2 Ed.), page 210.
Before equity will undertake to remove a cloud upon title, it must assume some semblance of a title, either legal or equitable, to the property in question. Cyc., vol.- 32, p. 1314.
A mere verbal claim to or assertion of ownership in land does not constitute a cloud on title, and neither can a dispute about the true location of the beginning corner of two adjoining grants constitute a cloud on the title to either. Waters v. Lewis, 106 Ga., 758; Wait’s Actions and Defenses, vol. 3, p. 189.
I do not think the act of 1893, Revisal, sec. 1589, has any bearing, upon this case. It was not intended to substitute an action, remove a cloud on title for a processioning proceeding, or for an action of trespass quare clausum fregit to try title to land. McNamee v. Alexander, 109 N. C., 242; Pearson v. Boyden, 86 N. C., 585.
*283Tbe statute referred to was intended simply to remove the restriction that before a plaintiff could maintain an action to remove a cloud upon his title he must affirmatively show that he was in the rightful and actual possession of the land, and allow the bringing of the action by one not in the actual possession thereof. McLean v. Shaw, 125 N. C., 492.
To show the irregularity of this proceeding, although the jury have located the plaintiff’s grant according to his contention, and therefore the defendant’s grant covers no part of it according to such location, yet his Honor has given judgment that the defendant’s grant constitutes a cloud upon the title of the plaintiff, and decrees that’the defendant’s grant, together with all mesne conveyances thereunder which the defendant claims title to said land, are hereby adjudged and declared to be void.
For these reasons I think the action should be dismissed.
Me. Justice Walkee concurs in this opinion.