{
  "id": 8525147,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. J. T. TAYLOR, JR., J. H. SIMPSON, and HARRELL M. CARPENTER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Taylor",
  "decision_date": "1983-07-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 823SC419",
  "first_page": "364",
  "last_page": "368",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. App. 364"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 553",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "good discussion of the legislative history of G.S. \u00a7 146-79"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 45",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565594
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "good discussion of the legislative history of G.S. \u00a7 146-79"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0045-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 S.E. 2d 523",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 N.C. App. 654",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523564
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/61/0654-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 S.E. 142",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1889,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N.C. 112",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650704
      ],
      "year": 1889,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/104/0112-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 S.E. 2d 42",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 N.C. App. 673",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523450
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/60/0673-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 S.E. 2d 286",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "possession to distribute presumed from possession of over 5 grams of marijuana"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 N.C. 762",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570920,
        8570958,
        8571026,
        8570995,
        8571124
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "possession to distribute presumed from possession of over 5 grams of marijuana"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/285/0762-01",
        "/nc/285/0762-02",
        "/nc/285/0762-04",
        "/nc/285/0762-03",
        "/nc/285/0762-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 S.E. 2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "possession to distribute presumed from possession of over 5 grams of marijuana"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 601",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11310021
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "possession to distribute presumed from possession of over 5 grams of marijuana"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/22/0601-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 S.E. 968",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1896,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 N.C. 688",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653829
      ],
      "year": 1896,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/118/0688-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 S.E. 2d 255",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "256"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 N.C. App. 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549901
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/31/0398-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 567,
    "char_count": 9323,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.819,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.55456961333031e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8147243333491644
    },
    "sha256": "db270b08ff6b344a5d7cf00dcdd3b581a7525aa5117e7ea906db858f6431b04c",
    "simhash": "1:8ce64e53ca6f8962",
    "word_count": 1588
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:10.514065+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Arnold and Phillips concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. J. T. TAYLOR, JR., J. H. SIMPSON, and HARRELL M. CARPENTER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BECTON, Judge.\nI\nThis controversy concerns the title to a large tract of timberland in Craven County, North Carolina.\nPlaintiff, the State of North Carolina (State) filed suit against the defendants, J. T. Taylor, Jr., J. H. Simpson, and Harrell M. Carpenter on 1 May 1978. The State alleged that it owns the tract in question, that defendants committed acts of trespass on the tract, and prayed for an adjudication of title, an order restraining defendants from further trespass, and damages. Defendants Taylor and Carpenter each answered and denied the material allegations of the State\u2019s complaint; defendant Simpson failed to file any responsive pleadings, and judgment for default was entered against him. Defendant Carpenter did not appear at trial and did not present evidence. Taylor was thus the sole defendant at trial and appears in this Court alone.\nTaylor was allowed to amend his answer to add a constitutional challenge to N. C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 146-79 (1983) on the ground that the statute raises an impermissible presumption of title in the State in violation of the Equal Protection and Law of the Land Clauses of the United States and North Carolina Constitutions, respectively, since the presumption shifts the burden of proof of title to the party in possession of the tract.\nA trial was held before the Honorable Julius A. Rousseau, sitting without a jury, in Craven County Superior Court on 14 September 1981. Taylor moved for dismissal of the State\u2019s case pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 41(b) (1969) at the conclusion of the State\u2019s case in chief. That motion was denied. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial court found facts and concluded, as a matter of law, that G.S. \u00a7 146-79 creates a valid presumption that the State has title to otherwise unclaimed lands, and that Taylor failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he had title superior to that of the State. The trial court then decreed that the State had title free of Taylor\u2019s claim, permanently enjoined Taylor from entering the tract, taxed costs against Taylor, and retained the matter for a later determination of the damages issue. Taylor appealed.\nTaylor brings forth nineteen (19) assignments of error and makes twelve (12) arguments on appeal. However, we find that his contentions present just two (2) dispositive issues for our review: First, whether the trial court erred when it rejected Taylor\u2019s constitutional attack on G.S. \u00a7 146-79; and second, if the statute is valid, whether defendant successfully proved that he has valid title to the lands in question. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.\nIll\nG.S. \u00a7 U6-79\nThe portion of the statute pertinent here reads:\nIn all controversies and suits for any land to which the State or any State agency or its assigns shall be a party, the title to such lands shall be taken and deemed to be in the State or the State agency or its assigns until the other party shall show that he has a good and valid title to such lands in himself.\nTaylor argues that because this is an action to quiet title, the State, but for the statute, would have the burden to prove title in itself. The sovereign, as other plaintiffs, should have to rely on the strength of its own title.\nAlthough this argument is more properly denominated a due process attack, we note that the operation of G.S. \u00a7 146-79 does not effect an uncompensated taking. See, State v. Chadwick, 31 N.C. App. 398, 229 S.E. 2d 255 (1976).\nTaylor fares no better on his burden of proof argument. As early as 1896 North Carolina courts recognized that the Legislature has the power to change the burden of proof imposed at common law. Moore v. Byrd, 118 N.C. 688, 23 S.E. 968 (1896). The Legislature has virtually untrammeled authority to codify and change the rules of evidence so long as due process is accorded and no other constitutional provisions are infringed. 1 Brand\u00e9is on North Carolina Evidence \u00a7 6 (2d rev. ed. 1982). Further, our courts have consistently held that presumptions are lawful so long as there is a rational connection between the fact to be proven and the facts which provide the basis for the presumption. See, e.g., State v. McAuliffe, 22 N.C. App. 601, 207 S.E. 2d 1, cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 285 N.C. 762, 209 S.E. 2d 286 (1974) (possession to distribute presumed from possession of over 5 grams of marijuana). This is especially so when, as here, the presumption created by the statute is rebuttable and not conclusive: \u201cThe presumption of title in the State lasts only until the rival claimant establishes valid title in himself.\u201d State v. Chadwick, at 399, 229 S.E. 2d at 256.\nThat there is a rational connection between the fact to be proven (State\u2019s ownership) and the underlying facts (State a party to the title action) is not in doubt. The State has the ultimate title to the soil.\nUpon the Declaration of Independence, the people of the original thirteen states succeeded to all rights of the Crown and became the owners of all lands within the limits of the state which had not been granted to others, and the same principle held true with respect to later admitted states; title to vacant, ungranted lands in them vested in the states. The presumption is, therefore, that the people of these states own all lands which have never been granted by them, until the contrary appears.\n72 Am. Jur. 2d, States, Territories, and Dependencies, \u00a7 66 (1974); Moore v. Byrd. Since title to land is originally acquired from the State, it is reasonable to assume that, absent proof otherwise, title to any parcel within its boundaries reposes there. We therefore find unpersuasive defendant\u2019s argument that G.S. \u00a7 146-79 creates a constitutionally impermissible presumption of title in the State, and expressly hold that it passes constitutional muster. Accord, State v. J. T. Taylor, et al., 60 N.C. App. 673, 300 S.E. 2d 42 (1983).\nIV\nTitle\nIn an action to try title, the party with the burden of proof (Taylor, in the case sub judice) must make at least a prima facie showing of title, one method of which is by the offer of a connected chain of title from the State to himself. Mobley v. Griffin, 104 N.C. 112, 10 S.E. 142 (1889). Taylor elected this method at trial. Although Taylor may have shown a connected chain of title from the State in and to himself, considering the Statute of Uses, we need not reach that issue.\nAssuming, arguendo, that the documents of record offered by Taylor constitute a connected chain, he nevertheless failed to pull the \u201claboring oar.\u201d It is axiomatic that the description contained in the record documents must include the tract claimed. That identity of description and tract is missing here.\nThe trial court found, and there is support in the record for its finding, inter alia, that the plat offered sub judice was based neither on \u201can actual survey of the property at that time,\u201d nor research of filed land records. Rather, the plat and description based thereon were so inaccurate that \u201cit would be impossible to locate the boundaries of [the tract in question] on the ground independent of other information regarding its location.\u201d Because the court below sat as fact finder, and competent evidence was adduced at trial to support its findings, we are bound thereby, and the conclusions based thereon must be affirmed. Ayden Tractors v. Gaskins, 61 N.C. App. 654, 301 S.E. 2d 523 (1983).\nWe therefore hold that Taylor failed satisfactorily to prove good and valid title in and to himself, and thus to rebut the presumption raised by G.S. \u00a7 146-79 that the State owns the land in question.\nV\nBecause of the result reached in part IV of this opinion we find it unnecessary to address any of defendants\u2019 other arguments. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is\nAffirmed.\nJudges Arnold and Phillips concur.\n. See generally, State v. Brooks, 279 N.C. 45, 181 S.E. 2d 553 (1971) (good discussion of the legislative history of G.S. \u00a7 146-79).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BECTON, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General T. Buie Costen and Assistant Attorney General R. Bryant Wall, for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Henderson & Baxter, P.A., by David S. Henderson and Nelson W. Taylor, III, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. J. T. TAYLOR, JR., J. H. SIMPSON, and HARRELL M. CARPENTER\nNo. 823SC419\n(Filed 19 July 1983)\n1. Trespass to Try Title \u00a7 2\u2014 constitutionally valid presumption that State has title to otherwise unclaimed lands\nG.S. 146-79 which creates a presumption that the State has title to otherwise unclaimed land is valid and constitutional. Since title to land is originally acquired from the State, it is reasonable to assume that, absent proof otherwise, title to any parcel within its boundaries reposes there.\n2. Trespass to Try Title \u00a7 4\u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nIn an action in which the State asserted ownership of certain lands, defendant failed satisfactorily to prove good and valid title in and to himself, and thus rebut the presumption raised by G.S. 146-79 that the State owned the land in question.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Rousseau, Judge. Judgment entered 12 November 1981 in Superior Court, CRAVEN County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 March 1983.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General T. Buie Costen and Assistant Attorney General R. Bryant Wall, for plaintiff appellee.\nHenderson & Baxter, P.A., by David S. Henderson and Nelson W. Taylor, III, for defendant appellant.\n. The judgment was signed 26 October 1981 out of session and out of district with the parties\u2019 consent."
  },
  "file_name": "0364-01",
  "first_page_order": 396,
  "last_page_order": 400
}
