Court Opinion

ID: 9808138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:29:01.123798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:15.802750
License: Public Domain

Clarkson, L,
dissenting: Conceding that defendant owns the surface right in the land, where plaintiff traces to the same source the record titles of both plaintiff and defendant to the mineral interests in the land, and also establishes the chronological and record priority of his record title, is the burden thereby cast upon the defendant to satisfy the jury that he has acquired title by adverse possession? The majority answers “No.” With this view I cannot agree.
What are the facts which plaintiff’s evidence tended to establish? (1) The Toe River Land & Mining Company, owner of the fee simple, conveyed to Bob Buchanan the surface and a one-fourth undivided *559interest in tbe mineral rights. (2) Plaintiff Yance bought from Buchanan his one-fourth undivided interest in the minerals, and at an execution sale secured the remaining three-fourths undivided mineral interests from the Toe River Land & Mining Company. Having rested his claim upon the original title of the Toe River Land & Mining Company, in part through a conveyance of Buchanan, plaintiff offered evidence tending to establish the following transactions, all later in time than the original conveyance of the Toe River Land & Mining Company to Buchanan: (A) Buchanan sold one tract to Jeremiah Pritchard, and another to John Pritchard, and Jeremiah Pritchard in turn sold to Walter Hughes; all of these deeds reserved the mineral interests. (B) Hughes sold to John S. Pritchard and Benjamin Pritchard, but, by failing to reserve the mineral interests, undertook to convey a fee simple title. (C) John Pritchard also sold to Benjamin Pritchard, and likewise failed to reserve the mineral interests. Thus, both Hughes and John Pritchard undertook to convey mineral interests which they did not possess. The record titles of the two defendants to the three tracts rest, by intervening conveyances, upon the assumption that Hughes possessed a fee simple title to these lands. However, this assumption fails; plaintiff’s evidence tended to establish that Hughes had no title to the mineral interests which he purported to convey. By two unbroken chains the record titles of both plaintiff and defendant are derived from the Toe River Land & Mining Company. The apparent fact that Hughes, one of the intervening owners of the surface in defendants’ chain, wrongfully attempted to convey mineral interests which he did not possess did not thereby break the chain of the record title. It did, however, destroy the possibility of defendants’ proving a clear record title to the mining interests, as it then became apparent that Hughes had never received the mineral interests which had much earlier been severed and conveyed to plaintiff’s predecessors in title. Hoilman v. Johnson, 164 N. C., 268.
Here, on this record, both record titles descend from the Toe River Land & Mining Company. This is not denied. That company by conveyance severed the mineral from the surface rights, thus creating two chains of title. This is not denied. One of these chains — the mineral title — is plaintiff’s; the other chain — the surface title (which recently became color of title also as to the mineral interests) — is defendants’. This is admitted. Defendants can only show color of title to the mineral interests by attaching such a claim to the chain which shows their title to the surface. This is not contested. Thus, not alone did the evidence of plaintiff show this dominant title under the “common source” rule, but defendants’ claim of adverse possession under color of title likewise bind defendants to the same chain of title which plaintiff showed was insufficient.
*560In the words of Ashe, J. (Christenburg v. King, 85 N. C., 230), quoted with approval by Hoke, J., in McCoy v. Lumber Co., 149 N. C., 1 (4), the rule of this jurisdiction is : “ ‘It is well settled as an inflexible rule, that where both parties claim under the same person, neither of them can deny his right, and then, as between them, the elder is the better title and must prevail. To this rule there is an exception, when the defendant can show a better title outstanding, and has acquired it.’ ”
Plaintiff relying upon this rule both his own and defendants’ record titles to the common source — the Toe Eiver Land & Mining Company— and in so doing established his as the elder title and therefore entitled to prevail. The majority opinion states that this rule does not apply where the fee simple has been severed and two or more competent estates has resulted because there is no estoppel operative in such cases. The error in this position is that the “common source” rule in North Carolina is not dependent upon estoppel. “It must be borne in mind that the general rule applicable to cases like this, is not strictly an estoppel, but a rule of justice and convenience adopted by the courts to relieve the plaintiff in ejectment from the necessity of going back behind the common source, from which he and defendant derive title, and deducing his title by a chain of mesne conveyances from the State. Frey v. Ramsour, 66 N. C., 466.” Christenburg v. King, 85 N. C., 230 (234).
In McCoy v. Lumber Co., supra, p. 3, it is said: “This is not in strictness an application of the doctrine of estoppel, but is a rule established for the convenience of parties in actions of this character, relieving them of the necessity of going back further than the common source when it is apparent that both parties are acting in recognition of this common source as the true title.”
To the same effect, see Howell v. Shaw, 183 N. C., 460, 462. Further, “It is not a case strictly of estoppel, but a well settled rule of evidence, founded on justice and convenience. . . . It is the possession of the defendant, under his claim of right or title from the common source, whether by deed or lease, or what is the legal equivalent of a lease, a contract of purchase, that determines the application of the rule as shown by the cases last cited. This does not deprive the defendant of the right to show that he has a better title, even as between the parties claiming only from a common source, or that he has, in some other way, acquired the superior title. The authorities merely declare that a plaintiff’s case is made out when all that appears is that he and the defendant claim under the same common grantor, and the question is one of the state of proof only.” (Italics mine.) Bowen v. Perkins, 154 N. C., 449, 452. Clearly, under our cases, this case is properly not determinable upon reasoning based upon the doctrine of estoppel, but rather upon the effect of a rule of convenience long accepted as a valid means of proving title.
*561Fisher v. Mining Co., 94 N. C., 397, relied upon by the majority, is not inconsistent witb the view here expressed. The question there involved was not the “common source” rule. There the opposing chain of title was offered, not to show “common source,” but specifically “to estop the defendant.” See p. 398.
In the present case there was no plea of estoppel. Here defendant relied upon two deeds.to show color of title; the moment these deeds were placed in evidence the defendants’ claim attached to a chain running straight back to the original common grantor. In the Fisher case, supra, estoppel was pleaded and the court held that tracing title to the same source but not to a common source was insufficient to show estoppel. Not so here. In the present case there is no plea of estoppel; plaintiff merely relies upon an established rule of evidence and practice and the title so proved has been challenged as insufficient. In my opinion there is no place in this case for a discussion of the estoppel doctrine. This case should turn upon the “common source” rule and, in my opinion, plaintiff has fully complied with the requirements of this rule.
Having disposed of the theory of estoppel, it becomes equally clear that the mere fact that defendants’ record claim to the minerals cannot be traced further back than Hughes is of no importance. What is important, and determinative of this case, is that defendants claim under Hughes, who in turn claims by mesne conveyances under plaintiff’s ulterior grantor. Defendants claim under color of title. Color of title exists only by virtue of a deed or deeds. The deed under which defendants claim title is the last link in a record chain of title going back to plaintiff’s grantor. In the words of Montgomery, J., in Ryan v. Martin, 91 N. C., 464, 469: “If the defendant has the same source of title as the plaintiff, and no other, wherefore need the plaintiff go beyond that as to the defendant? Such an inquiry would be idle. It is plain that no injustice in such case could be done the defendant; and if the rule were otherwise, it might and would in many cases put the plaintiff to great inconvenience and much needless expense. . . . It is not necessary to show that the defendant has a complete title to the land; if there is no title paramount to it, it is sufficient to show that under a valid contract he claims to hold and has possession of the property under the common source. If the defendant has a bond for title, or other contract of purchase, or an unregistered deed for the land, and is in possession thereof, this will be sufficient evidence of a claim under the common source. It will he presumed that he claims under such contract. The purpose is to show that he claims the property under the common source ■ — -that he admits his relation to it and claims under it, without regard to the sufficiency or perfectness of the title.” (Italics mine.)
Plaintiff in relying upon this rule followed precisely the practice already approved by this Court. In Warren v. Williford, 148 N. C., *562474 (477), Connor, J., wrote: “This rule of practice has been recognized and followed in this State too long to require discussion. The plaintiff, therefore, having shown a chain of title from E. G. Williford for the purpose of relieving himself of the necessity of showing title out of the State, introduced the deed from the sheriff to defendant, showing that he also claimed under Williford. This is a common and well settled practice in the trial of actions of ejectment in this State.” There (as here) plaintiff showed the superior title of record in himself. There (as the Court should here) the procedure of plaintiff was approved. As was said by Baiile, J., in Johnson v. Watts, 46 N. C., 228 (231), once the common source of title has been shown by plaintiff, “The defendant, in a case like the present, can defend himself only by showing that he has a better title in himself than that of plaintiff’s lessor, derived, either from the person from whom they both claim, or from some other person who had such better title.” When plaintiff had offered evidence establishing the common source of title, he made out a prima facie title to the mineral interests. The burden of going forward then shifted to defendants. The burden of showing adverse possession rested upon the defendants. In the words of Chief Justice Stacy, “But, when the plaintiff has established a legal title to the premises, and the defendant undertakes to defeat a recovery by showing possession, adverse for the requisite period of time, either under or without color of title, the defense is an affirmative one in which the defendant pro hac vice becomes plaintiff, and he is required to establish it by the greater weight of the evidence.” Power Co. v. Taylor, 194 N. C., 231 (233-4), and cases cited. The charge as to the burden of proof is in strict accord with that case. The defendants, in fact, recognized this burden and attempted to prove adverse possession, but, having failed to do so, the jury found against them. “The owner of the surface can acquire no title to the minerals by exclusion and continuous possession of the surface, nor does the owner of the minerals lose his right or his possession by any length of nonuser. He must be disseized to lose his right, and there can be no disseizin by any act which does not actually take the minerals out of his possession.” Hoilman v. Johnson, 164 N. C., 268 (269). The facts as to the adverse possession were in doubt and, in my opinion, the trial judge properly left this question for the jury. His charge as to the burden of proof was challenged on this appeal. I think his charge in this respect was a correct exposition of the settled law in this jurisdiction.