McDowell v. . Love
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Haywood County, at the Spring Term, 1848, his Honor Judge Battle presiding. This was an action of ejectment, brought originally against one Joseph Chamberses tenant in possession, but in which the present defendant was afterwards permitted to come in and defend as landlord upon the following affidavit.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Haywood County, at the Spring Term, 1848, his Honor Judge Battle presiding. This was an action of ejectment, brought originally against one Joseph Chamberses tenant in possession, but in which the present defendant was afterwards permitted to come in and defend as landlord upon the following affidavit. “James R. Love comes into Court and swears that thé premises in dispute are his, he being the sole tenant of said premises ; that Joseph Chambers, went into possession as subtenant of his tenant, E. Chambers, that affiant swears that said subtenant has…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
Ever since the decision of the case of Albertson v. Redding, 2 Murph. Rep. 283, S. C. 1 Ca. Law Rep. 274, it has been considered the settled law of this State, that, in all cases of ejectment, whether the consent rule be general or special, the lessor of the plaintiff is bound to prove the defendant to be in possession of the premises, which he seeks to recover. This is placed upon the ground that the defendant’s being in possession of the premises is a material allegation of the plaintiff’s lessor, which it is incumbent upon him to prove; and that the consent rule, by which the defendant is…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Belfour and Henly Heirs v. . Davis and NixonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1838
- Mordecai v. . OliverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1825