Doe on the Demise of Bruce v. Faucett
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an actioN of ejectment, tried before SauNDers, J., at tlie-Spring Term, 1857, of Orange Superior Court. The lessors of the plaintiff showed that they and the defendant claimed under John A. Faucett, and produced a deed for the premises in question, being a part of lot no. 122, in the town of Hillsborough, from him to Henry Faucett, his father, dated 1st of July, 1830, and a deed from Henry Faucett back to John A. Faucett, dated 4th of July, 1831, conveying the same…
Read the full summary
This was an actioN of ejectment, tried before SauNDers, J., at tlie-Spring Term, 1857, of Orange Superior Court. The lessors of the plaintiff showed that they and the defendant claimed under John A. Faucett, and produced a deed for the premises in question, being a part of lot no. 122, in the town of Hillsborough, from him to Henry Faucett, his father, dated 1st of July, 1830, and a deed from Henry Faucett back to John A. Faucett, dated 4th of July, 1831, conveying the same premises to him in fee, for the sole, separate and exclusive use of Harriet Bruce, the wife of George "W. Bruce, and the…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
The construction put by bis Honor upon tbe deed under which the lessors of the plaintiff claim, is correct. It did not pass the legal estate to the heirs-at-law of Mrs. Bruce, and of course they cannot maintain their action of ejectment. The deed is one of bargain and sale, which operates to convey the title by the force and effect of the statute of uses, 27th Hen. 8th, (sec. 1 Rev. Stat., ch. 43, sec. 4; Rev. Code, ch. 43, sec. 6.) As a deed of bargain and sale, it is governed, in this State by the same principles which were applied to it in England. It must have a pecuniary, or other…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Exum v. LynchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- Bryan v. . EasonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Exum v. . LynchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- Blount v. . BlountSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1816
- Slade v. . SmithSuperior Court of North Carolina · 1796