Demise of Johnson v. Farlow

35 N.C. 84

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: December 5, 1851
• Status: Published

Opinion

Pearson, J.

It is entirely clear, that the plaintiff was' entitled to recover. McCracken, after his deed to the lessor, had no color of title, and the adverse possession which he held was “ naked.” It is absurd to suppose, that the deed, under which he had originally acquired the land, could serve his purpose as color of title, after he had passed all of his estate, interest, and claim under it to the lessor. Color of title is something which purports to give title, but he had nothing of the kind. The deed to him was functus officio, except as one of the mesne conveyances of the lessor. If McCracken had taken a deed from a third person, that would have been color oí title, and seven years adverse possession under it would, in the language of the cases, “ have ripened it into a perfect title”, thus originating, which did not exist at the date of his deed, for the averment of this new title, would not be inconsistent with the admission, which he was bound to make, that his deed had passed the title to the lessor. He might well be heard to say, I admit that I passed the title to you by my deed, but I have since a new titlej which had no existence at the time, and which, of course, I did not profess to pass to 3rou;

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.