Hinton v. M'Gavock
Tennessee Supreme Court
In Error. To overreach an elder grant, founded upon a junior entry, the calls of the elder entry must have been notorious at the date of the junior entry. [Cooke, 137.] That the beginning corner of the elder entry was notorious at the date of the grant, founded upon the junior entry, will not deprive the latter of the legal advantage which is based upon an elder grant. [194] M’Gavoce sued Hinton, in ejectment, in the Davidson Circuit Court.
Read the full summary
In Error. To overreach an elder grant, founded upon a junior entry, the calls of the elder entry must have been notorious at the date of the junior entry. [Cooke, 137.] That the beginning corner of the elder entry was notorious at the date of the grant, founded upon the junior entry, will not deprive the latter of the legal advantage which is based upon an elder grant. [194] M’Gavoce sued Hinton, in ejectment, in the Davidson Circuit Court. M’Gavock’s grant issued in 1808 ; the grant to Prunell, under whom Hinton, the defendant below, claimed title by a regular chain of conveyances, issued in…
1Opinion of the CourtCatRON, J.
No proof was introduced to show that the claim of Evan Baker, assignee of Samuel Conn, was notorious at the time M’Gavock’s entry was made, on the 24th January, 1784; but it was pro.ved that, about January, 1783, John Shelby made a survey with a view to locate more precisely Evan Baker’s entry, which entry was made in October, 1784. To affect the claim of Hinton with the notoriety of M’Gavock’s entry, much pains was taken to prove that the beginning of [196] Evan Baker, assignee of Conn, became notorious before the grant to Prunell issued.
The entry of Ewing being special, both in its locative…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Carter and Stubblefield v. WardTennessee Supreme Court · 1814
- Kerr's Lessee v. PorterTennessee Superior Court for Law and Equity · 1808