{
  "id": 8648910,
  "name": "W. W. LEWIS v. JOHN L. ROPER LUMBER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lewis v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1891-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "19",
  "last_page": "20",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "109 N.C. 19"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "99 N. C., 43",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649056
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/99/0043-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 N. C., 4",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272771
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/95/0004-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 N. C., 451",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651569
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/106/0451-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Jones, 159",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones",
      "case_ids": [
        11276982
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/51/0159-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Hawks, 33",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hawks",
      "case_ids": [
        11275474
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/9/0033-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 3158,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.544,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.220192602991313e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2683890064633112
    },
    "sha256": "c8ff6c9a5aafe188a1beb7b71d163c4a18a68f47b71ac63b3b03d32d18c38a63",
    "simhash": "1:bf3ae652229308d4",
    "word_count": 547
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:47:39.876308+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. W. LEWIS v. JOHN L. ROPER LUMBER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Davis, J.:\nAmong other questions presented by the case on appeal, is the followibg: The defendant offered, as a link in his chain of title, a deed for land lying in Washington and Tyrrell counties, including the locus in quo. This deed had been properly proved and registered in the county of Tyrrell, but had not been registered in Washington County. This deed defendant also offered as color of title.\nPlaintiff obj< cted to the introduction of this deed because it had not been registered in Washington County, unless the execution of the same should be proved. The Court excluded the deed, and the defendant excepted.\nThere was evidence tending to show that the defendant, and those under whom he claims, had been in the continuous possession of the land in controversy for more than seven years.\nWe think the deed offered in evidence constituted color of title, and that there was error in excluding it.\nThe deed had been properly proven and registered in Tyrrell County, the land lying in both Tyrrell and Washington counties, and The Code, \u00a7 124S, provides that, \u201cWhere real estate is situate in two or more counties, probate of the deed or other instrument conveying or concerning the same, made before the Clerk of the Superior Court of either of said counties, is sufficient.\u201d\nIt is the continuous possession of land, under color of title, for the statutory period that confers title, and not the validity of the instrument constituting color of title.\nThe possession puts everybody upon notice as to the possessor\u2019s title or claim of title, whether legal or equitable, registeredjor unregistered, and it is well settled that a deed, whether registered or not, is good as color of title. Campbell v. McArthur, 2 Hawks, 33; Hardin v. Barrett, 6 Jones, 159; Brown v. Brown, 106 N. C., 451.\nThe deed had been proved in a Court of original and competent jurisdiction, and the defendant was entitled to the benefit of it as evidence in making out his chain of title to the land in controversy. Edwards v. Cobb, 95 N. C., 4; Evans v. Etheridge, 99 N. C., 43, and cases there cited.\nThere were other exoeptions presented in the case on appeal, but we deem it unnecessary to consider them. There was error in excluding the deed offered as color of title, and the defendant is entitled to a new trial.\nError.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Davis, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. S. B. Spruill (by brief), for plaintiff.",
      "Mr. diaries L. Pettigrew, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. W. LEWIS v. JOHN L. ROPER LUMBER COMPANY.\nColor of Title \u2014 Deed\u2014Evidence.\nA deed, conveying a tract of land situate in two counties, having been duly admitted to probate in one, its execution is thereby sufficiently established to make it competent evidence, as color of titl\u00bb\u00a3 to the lands located in the other county.\nThis was an action to recover damages for an alleged trespass on land, and cutting and taking timber therefrom, tried at Spring Term, 1891, of WASHINGTON Superior Court, Bryan, J., presiding.\nThe defendant denied the allegations of the complaint, and claimed that it was the owner in fee of the land upon which the trespass is alleged to have been committed.\nThere was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.\nMr. S. B. Spruill (by brief), for plaintiff.\nMr. diaries L. Pettigrew, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0019-01",
  "first_page_order": 53,
  "last_page_order": 54
}