Spruill v. . Hopkins

Per CukiaM. 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 he 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.