Court Opinion

ID: 9808628
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:44:46.998931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:20.947963
License: Public Domain

Hoke, J.,
dissenting. Impressed as I am with the learned discussion of the subject in the opinion of the Court, I cannot bring my mind to the conclusion, made the basis of the decision, that in order to make a deed available as color of title, it is always necessary that there should be an actual entry thereunder by the original grantee. To constitute color of title in this State, it is required that there should be a paper writing purporting to convey or contract for the title to land, sufficiently defining its boundaries and an entry thereunder asserting ownership with a certain degree of good faith. Subject to these requirements the question of color of title is very largely one of intent and there is no reason occurring to me why an heir should not be allowed to acquire title when he enters under a deed to the ancestor and remains in the exclusive possession for the required length of time, asserting ownership under the deed, The position chiefly relied upon in the Court’s opinion that there should be an entry by the ancestor grantee, under the deed, and descent cast before the heir can avail himself of the deed as color, is a doctrine asserted and applied by the courts to cases where it was necessary to join or “tack” the possession 'of the *554ancestor to that of the heir in order, to make out the length of occupation required. The courts were giving a reason for allowing one wrongdoer or disseizor to avail himself of the occupation by another and this is what the text books mean when they lay such apparent stress upon possession by the ancestor, as in the citation from Warvelle, appearing in the principal opinion, “that possession under a deed, giving color may be transferred to other parties, but in order to do this they must be purely of grant or descent.” In our case, however, there was evidence to the effect that the heirs had entered, and themselves had occupied the property adversely for the required length of time, asserting ownership under the deed to their ancestor, and to my mind there is nothing to prevent the operation of the principles of color of title, a paper writing purporting to convey same and an entry thereunder asserting ownership in good faith. Such a claim of ownership would not be allowed to an absolute stranger, but by reason of privity it should be allowed to the heir. The principle contended for seems to have been applied in Miller v. Davis, 106 Mich., p. 300, and was directly recognized by this Court in Bond v. Beverly, 152 N. C., p. 57. In-that well considered case, it appeared that the executors of a claimant, under order of court, had sold the land in controversy to one Harrill and made a deed to Harrill, properly and sufficiently defining the boundaries. Harrill conveyed to Beverly, the ancestor of defendant, who entered and he and those under whom he claimed oqcupied for sufficient length of time to mature the title, asserting ownership under these deeds. The deed from the executors to Harrill was a good and sufficient deed. That from Harrill to Beverly was void for lack of sufficient description. There was no entry on the land under this claim until Beverly, the ancestor of defendants, entered. The title of defendants by adverse occupation was established and allowed to prevail. This was not, as insisted, an application of the recognized principle that a lessor may ripen his own title by the occupation of his lessee or even his licensee, under and by virtue of the deed to Harrill, the grantee of the executors, although there had never been any entry by Harrill or anyone under whom he claimed, Beverly, who claimed under Harrill, was *555allowed to avail himself of bis grantor’s deed as color, though the grantee himself had not entered. On the facts presented he ■was not an absolute stranger, but a claimant asserting ownership in good faith. While we recognize and treat claims of this character as beginning in a disseizin we know that many of them, as a matter of fact, represent the true title, the evidence of which has been lost, from accident or inattention, under the lax methods that formerly prevailed when land was cheaper and more readily obtained. Many thousands of titles in this State could not now be strictly establishel by a line of registered deeds. Fifty or sixty years back it would be difficult to show the character or circumstances of an original entry, by oral testimony. One hundred years back it would be impossible and to my mind it is an unsound principle and one fraught with much danger that deprives an heir of the privilege of availing himself of his ancestor’s deed as color. I am of opinion that on the facts in evidence the cause should have been submitted to the jury-