From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spruill v. Hopkins

Supreme Court of North Carolina
May 1, 1913
78 S.E. 1040 (N.C. 1913)

Opinion

(Filed 28 May, 1913)

Evidence — Boundaries — Declarations of a Living person.

Testimony of the declarations of a living person as to the boundaries of land in dispute is incompetent.

APPEAL by defendants from Webb, J., at Spring Term, 1912, of TYRRELL. Action to recover damages for cutting timber on a strip of land, claimed by the plaintiff to be a part of the Clayton tract of land.

M. Majette and W. M. Bond for plaintiff.

I. M. Meekins and Ward Grimes for defendant.


The defendants admit that the plaintiffs are the owners of the Clayton tract, but they deny that the land in controversy is a part of that tract.

The Belgrade and Holly Grove tracts of land adjoin the Clayton tract. Both parties claim title under W. S. Pettigrew, who was the father of Charles Pettigrew. Charles Pettigrew is now (527) living, and there is no evidence in the record that he was at any time the owner of the land in dispute, or of the Belgrade land, or of the Holly Grove land.

Mr. Nooney testified for plaintiff: "Am 69 years old. I was overseer for Mr. Charles Pettigrew. I know the Clayton tract of land. Mr. Charles Pettigrew, while in possession of the Holly Grove and Belgrade tracts, told me not to cut on the land now in dispute. Said it was a part of the Noah Spruill's Clayton land." Defendants excepted.

There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs, and defendants excepted and appealed.


The evidence of the witness Nooney was very important on the issue before the jury, and was clearly hearsay and incompetent.

It is not brought within the rule admitting the declarations of a deceased witness, as the declarant is living; nor does it appear that either party claims under him, or that the was more than an agent in possession of the Belgrade and Holly Grove lands. Cansler v. Fite, 50 N.C. 426; Lawrence v. Hyman, 79 N.C. 211; Perkins v. Brinkley, 133 N.C. 350.

The evidence also fails to show that Mr. Pettigrew had any knowledge of the boundaries, or that he was doing more than expressing an opinion that the land in dispute was a part of the Clayton tract. There must be a

New trial.

(528)


Summaries of

Spruill v. Hopkins

Supreme Court of North Carolina
May 1, 1913
78 S.E. 1040 (N.C. 1913)
Case details for

Spruill v. Hopkins

Case Details

Full title:R. H. SPRUILL ET AL v. W. T. HOPKINS

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: May 1, 1913

Citations

78 S.E. 1040 (N.C. 1913)
162 N.C. 526

Citing Cases

Perkins v. Brinkley

MONTGOMERY, J., did not sit on the hearing of this case. Cited: Cowles v. Lovin, 135 N.C. 490; Spruill v.…