Doe on Demises of Ward v. Herrin
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an action of ejectmeNt, tried before his Honor, Judge Caldwell, at the Special Term (December, 1856,) of Stanly Superior Court. On the trial below, the lessors of the plaintiff showed title to the land in dispute, by a grant from the State, and by mesne conveyances to them. The defendant relied on a grant from the State to himself, and one ‘William Crayton, of junior date, and a possession, under it, of seven years.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectmeNt, tried before his Honor, Judge Caldwell, at the Special Term (December, 1856,) of Stanly Superior Court. On the trial below, the lessors of the plaintiff showed title to the land in dispute, by a grant from the State, and by mesne conveyances to them. The defendant relied on a grant from the State to himself, and one ‘William Crayton, of junior date, and a possession, under it, of seven years. It was- proved that in 1844, the year after the defendant’s grant was issued, a cabin had been erected on the premises, which was occupied by Crayton, as a dwelling, from…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
The first question raised by the defendant in his bill of exceptions,-lias been too often decided by this Court to be now open for argument. A mere omission by the Judge to charge the jury upon a particular point, where no specific instructions upon it have been asked, is not error. Torrence v. Graham, 1 Dev. and Bat. Rep. 288 ; State v. O'Neal, 7 Ire. Rep. 253 ; Arey v. Stephenson, 12 Ire. Rep. 34.
The second exception is equally untenable. The interval of “ twelve months or thereabouts” in the actual occupation of the land by William Crayton, was fatal to the defendant’s claim of title upon…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Newkirk v. PorterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Helton v. CookCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975