Smith v. . Allen

MacRaic, J.: All the deeds offered by the plaintiffs were competent to show color of title, and were followed by testimony tending to prove continuous adverse possession under visible lines and boundaries by the plaintiffs and those under whom they claim for, more than seven years, (■olor of title is a writing upon its face professing to pass title to land. Keener v. Goodson, 89 N. C., 273. The first exception is met by Hill v. Wilton, 2 Murph., 14, which held that where the power of attorney was produced *226 and plainly .showed that the attorney had no authority to convey land, the deed purporting to be made by virtue of the power therein, constituted color of title. The second exception is covered by the case of Hare v. Holleman, 94 N. C., 14, where it is held that where the original papers in a cause have been burned or lost, the minutes of the Court are admissible in evidence to establish the validity of the proceedings. The deed from Sherrod Tyson to W. A. Cherry, trustee, ■ objected to because it had not been probated as to Cherry, was competent, having been proved and registered- as the deed of Tyson, under the presumption that it was accepted by the grantee therein. And if probate and registration had been necessary as to Cherry to pass title, the unregistered deect is color of title. Davis v. Higgins, 91 N. C., 382. The deed objected to bjr defendants because the privy examination of Sophia Paul did not appear to have been taken was also good as color of title, even if Sophia Paul wore a Jeme covert, of which we are not apprised. See Perry v. Perry, 99 N. C., 270, where cases are cited which meet nearly all of the exceptions. There was no exception to the refusal of his Honor to give the instruction asked in defendants’ first prayer for special instructions, and the instruction was not warranted by the evidence as stated in the case. It seems that every exception taken by defendants is untenable, and has been so repeatedly held. -Judgment Affirmed.