Den on Demise of Tyrrell v. Mooney
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Rutherford. Upon the trial of this ejectment, evidence was offered on behalf of the lessor of the Plaintiff, to prove that the person under whom the Defendant claimed, was enfty-taker of the county of Rutherford, at the time the entry 'was made upon which the grant issued, under which the Defendant claimed title to the lands in question j and that in making his entry, lie did not comply with the provisions of the act of 1777, ch. 1, which act in the 9th section…
Read the full summary
From Rutherford. Upon the trial of this ejectment, evidence was offered on behalf of the lessor of the Plaintiff, to prove that the person under whom the Defendant claimed, was enfty-taker of the county of Rutherford, at the time the entry 'was made upon which the grant issued, under which the Defendant claimed title to the lands in question j and that in making his entry, lie did not comply with the provisions of the act of 1777, ch. 1, which act in the 9th section declares, 6i That if any entry-taker shall be desirous to make any entry of lands in his own name, such entry shall be made in…
1Opinion of the Court
From Rutherford. The many cases occurring in our courts under the act of 1777, ch. 1, compelled the judges at an early period to adopt a construction which excludes the evidence offered in this case. In Reynolds v. Flinn,2 N.C. 106, the Court said: "Here the plaintiff has a State grant, and it would be of the most dangerous consequence to avoid it by parol testimony. It is true that the act of 1777, ch. 1, sec. 9, declares, `that every right, title, claim, etc., obtained in fraud, elusion, or evasion of the directions of that act shall be deemed void'; but the meaning is that it shall be void…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Andrews v. . MulfordSuperior Court of North Carolina · 1796
- State v. LongSuperior Court of North Carolina · 1795