Den Ex Dem. Proctor v. Pool
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an action of Ejectment, submitted to Nor-wood Judge, on a case agreed at Spring term, 1833, of Pasquotank Superior Court. The action was brought for the half of two lots oí land in Elizabeth City, known as lots No. 33 and 34.— Elizabeth B. Proctor was seised in fee of the two lots mentioned in the declaration.
Read the full summary
This was an action of Ejectment, submitted to Nor-wood Judge, on a case agreed at Spring term, 1833, of Pasquotank Superior Court. The action was brought for the half of two lots oí land in Elizabeth City, known as lots No. 33 and 34.— Elizabeth B. Proctor was seised in fee of the two lots mentioned in the declaration. The buildings, garden &c. were on the eastern part of the lots, which was separated from the western part, (used as a pasture,) by a fence, but they were all rented out together and as one tenement, by Samuel Proctor, the husband of Elizabeth, during his life. Samuel Proctor…
1Opinion of the Court
XluRRiN, Chief Justice.
The question is, whether the western half of the town lots, No. S3, and 34 passed by the deed of Mrs. Proctor to the wife of the defendant.
I think it cannot be doubted, that if Samuel Proctor, the father, had been the owner of the premises, the whole- would have passed under his will. It is plain lie did not speak of the lot as a subdivision of the land forming the town ; for he gives the house and lot. What lot ? Not No. S3, nor No. 34 ; for even within an indictment for burglary, the eastern half of both of those lots, forming the curtilage, would be part and parcel…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Duckett v. . LydaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- Lee v. BarefootSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
- Lee v. . BarefootSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
- Williamson v. . BittingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- Peebles v. Graham.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.