Cape Lookout Land Co. v. Maxwell
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by protestant from Calvert, Jat June Term, 1918, of Cae-teeet. This is a protest to an entry, tbe protestant claiming tbat the land entered is not vacant and unappropriated land, because— 1. It is covered by a grant issued by the State to John Fulford. 2. If the land entered is not covered by the grant, the title to it is in the protestant by the law of accretion. 3. If the land is not covered by the grant, the title to it is in the protestant by adverse possession.
Read the full summary
Appeal by protestant from Calvert, Jat June Term, 1918, of Cae-teeet. This is a protest to an entry, tbe protestant claiming tbat the land entered is not vacant and unappropriated land, because— 1. It is covered by a grant issued by the State to John Fulford. 2. If the land entered is not covered by the grant, the title to it is in the protestant by the law of accretion. 3. If the land is not covered by the grant, the title to it is in the protestant by adverse possession. The exceptions relate to evidence and to parts of the charge, which will be adverted to in the opinion. The jury returned…
1Opinion of the CourtAlleit, J.
We do not approve the form of the issue submitted to the jury because, under the first issue, the fact in dispute is whether the land company is seized of the land in controversy, when in a proceeding like this to protest an entry the enterer must fail unless he shows that the grant relied on by the protestant does not cover his entry; and if it appears that the entry is within the grant, the land is not vacant and unappropriated and subject to entry, although the protestant does not connect himself with the grant. In other words, the issue, separated from the charge, would lead to the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Walker v. . ParkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915