Doe on the Demise of Marshall v. Fisher
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an action of EJECTMENT, tried before Ms Honor Judge Bailey, at Craven Superior Court, Fall Term, 1853. The land in controversy is embraced within the lines G H J K of the diagram below.
Read the full summary
This was an action of EJECTMENT, tried before Ms Honor Judge Bailey, at Craven Superior Court, Fall Term, 1853. The land in controversy is embraced within the lines G H J K of the diagram below. The plaintiff offered two grants, one to Roger Bratcher, in 1772, and another to Lydia Guard, in 1771, and insisted that the one to Robert Bratcher covered the land designated by the lines of D CEE, and that to Lydia Guard the land within the lines A B C D. She plaintiff introduced the will of Roger Bratcher, which was verified by the following protest: “ The will of Roger Bratcher, deceased, proved…
1Opinion of the CourtPearson, J.
1st. The defendant excepts, btecause the will <of Bratcher was admitted as evidence, on the ground of the insufficiency of the probate. The minute entered of the ■probate, is: “ The will of Roger Bratcher, proved by Henry ■Sikes. Executor Thomas Bratcher qualified; ordered, that letters issue.” This entry is very informal, but we think it is sufficient, by the aid of the rule omnia prcesumnntur rite esse acta, to show that the will was duly proven.
Every Court, where the subject matter is within its jurisdiction, is presumed to have done all that is necessary to give force and effect to its…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Reynolds v. Lloyd Cotton MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
- Morris v. MorrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- County of Franklin v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- White v. . MorrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- Brown v. . HouseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.