Court Opinion

ID: 9812535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:40:40.907447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:06.729770
License: Public Domain

BkowN, J.,
concurring in result: I think that the charge of the judge upon the burden of proof is strictly correct and in accord with the decisions of this Court. The probate .of a deed with registration raises a presumption of execution and delivery which entitles plaintiff to a verdict unless defendant rebuts such presumption by evidence satisfactory to the jury. The burden of proof shifts when the probated and registered deed is introduced in evidence by the plaintiff, and then it rests on defendant to satisfy the jury that the deed in fact was never executed and delivered. The law gives -to the probate and registration of a deed the “artificial weight” of a presumption, and whoever attacks such deed must assume the burden of overthrowing or rebutting such presumption.
The probating of a deed is the solemn act of the law and imports absolute verity. It is a judicial act by the officers duly appointed by law.
This rule is laid down.by Clark, G. J., with much clearness in Smithwide v. Moore, 145 N. C., 110, and up to now has been regarded and acted upon as the settled law of this State.
In Fortune v. Hunt, 149 N. C., 358, this Court said: “His Honor should have told the jury that the law presumes that this deed, proved, registered, and offered in evidence by defendants claiming under it, was executed and delivered at the time it bears date unless the contrary be shown and the burden to show it rests on plaintiff.”
In Benedict v. Jones, 129 N. C., 470, the Court went so far as to hold that the presumption of the correctness of the certificate of probate must be overcome by “clear, strong, and convincing evidence.” The same rule was laid down in Lumber Co. v. Leonard, 145 N. C., 341, cited and approved in Odom v. Clark, 146 N. C., 550, by Mr. Justice Hoke.
In Glenn v. Glenn the same learned judge again cites and approves Leonard v. Lumber Co. and holds that this rule of evidence applies to “written certificates of officers given and made in the course of duty.” This rule is founded upon the protection which the law gives to land titles and the weightiest considerations of public policy require that it should not be weakened.
The Chief Justice concurs in this opinion.