Hill v. . Bean

Walker, J. This action was brought to recover two contiguous tracts of land, containing about one hundred and sixty-eight acres. Title was admitted to be out of the State, and the *437 plaintiffs own the land, unless the defendants have acquired title,..thereto by adverse possession. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ possession was not adverse, but they held the same by permission' of the plaintiffs. In order to show that the defendants were merely tenants of the plaintiffs, the latter introduced as a witness Scott-Smoke, who testified as to a conversation between him and Emily Bean, one of the defendants, while she was living on the land, concerning a letter to the plaintiffs. The court excluded the testimony, so far as it related to the contents of the letter, but admitted it as tending to prove a declaration by Emily Bean in acknowledgment of the plaintiffs’ title and in disparagement of her own. For this purpose it was clearly competent, and the testimony was properly restricted to that purpose. Yates v. Yates, 76 N. C., 142; Shaffer v. Gaynor, 117 N. C., 24; Ratliff v. Ratliff, 131 N. C., 428. The testimony of A. D. Hamilton, which was objected to by the defendants, was substantially to the same effect as that of Scott Smoke, except that it related to a declaration of Richard Bean in disparagement of his title, and tended to show that Bean was in possession, not claiming in his own right, but in subordination to the plaintiffs’ title. This kind of evidence has always been held to be competent, as will appear by reference to Shaffer v. Gaynor, supra, and the cases therein cited. The testimony of the witness Scott Smoke was competent against Emily Bean, and if the defendants intended to raise the question that it was not so against the other defendants they should have requested the judge to restrict it, but no such ground of objection is stated in the case. See Rule 27 (140 N. 0.., 662). The same 'may be said of the testimony of the witness A. D. Hamilton. It was competent for Mr. Bradshaw to testify that he was the agent of Francis A. C. Hill and others, and as sfich had charge of the land, paid the taxes and collected the rents. This is not a case of proving an agency by the declaration of the alleged agent, but by the testimony of the agent, under oath. "We do not see any error in the refusal of the court to give the instruction requested by the defendants. The judge correctly charged the jury as to what would constitute such adverse pos *438 session of tbe land by tbe defendants as to defeat tbe plaintiffs* recovery. He told tbe jury tbat if Tbayer’s acts in cutting tbe timber were committed without tbe knowledge or acquiescence of tbe defendants they would not affect their claim or impair their rights, but it would be otherwise if be was recognized by tbe defendants as acting for and in behalf of tbe plaintiffs. This instruction was as favorable to tbe defendants as they bad any reason to expect. Tbe jury found, in response to tbe issues, tbat the-plaintiffs are tbe owners of tbe land in controversy, and awarded damages. Upon this verdict judgment was entered for tbe plaintiffs, and defendants appealed. We find no error, after a most careful examination, in tbe rulings or judgment of tbe court. No Error.