Claywell v. McGimpsey, 15 N.C. 89, 4 Dev. 89 (1833)

Dec. 1833 · Supreme Court of North Carolina
15 N.C. 89, 4 Dev. 89

Peter Claywell v. William McGimpsey.

A deed is evidence of its own existence, against all the world, and of courso every thing which necessarily results from its existence; but of the truth Of the ¡natters recited, acknowledged, or declared therein, it is evidence only against parties and then privies.

This was an action of DetiNue to recover a negro slave, tried before his Honor, Judge Seawexx, in Iredell Superior Court.

The plaintiff and the defendant claimed title each under the same person — the plaintiff as a purchaser under a deed, professing on its face to be made for a valuable consideration paid by the plaintiff, and the defendant as a creditor under a purchase at sheriff's sale, upon an. execution posterior in time to the deed to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff insisted on the trial, that the recital in his deed was evidence against the defendant of the payment of the consideration stated in it, but the presiding Judge ruled that it was not evidence thereof against the defendant, whereupon the plaintiff submitted to a non-suit and appealed.

Bevereax, for the plaintiff.

No counsel appeared for the defendant.

Gaston, Judge.

The plaintiff in this case claimed title under a conveyance from the former owner, and the defendant set up title as a purchaser under an execution against the plaintiff’s vendor. It became material for the plaintiff to show that he was a purchaser for value, an d he insisted that the acknowledgement in h is vendor’s deed of a valuable consideration actually received, was proof of the payment of such consideration. TheJ udge decided that such acknowledgement was not evidence for this purpose against the defendant; and in consequence of this decision, the plaintiff was nonsuited.

The court consider the decision of the Judge perfectly correct. A deed is evidence against all the world to establish the fact that, such a deed was executed, and of co.urse all the legal consequences necessarily resulting from that fact. But when it is offered as evidence of *90the truth of the matters recited, acknowledged, or do-dared in the deed, it is then admissible only against or privies. When offered against others it is opposed by ope of the best established rules of law, founded on the principles of natural justice, that no one shall be pi’ejudiced by res inter alios acta — by the acts, declarations or conduct of strangers.

Per Curiam — Judgment aeeirmed.