Albertson v. Heirs of Reding
Supreme Court of North Carolina
The only question submitted to the Court iu this case was, whether the lessor of the Plaintiff in ejectment is bound to prove the defendant in possession of the premises which he seeks to recover, although the Defendant has entered into the common consent rule to confess lease, entry and ouster.
1Opinion of the CourtHeNdbrsoN, Judge
The operation of the consent rule raises tiie doubt in this case j for, very clearly without it, the Plaintiff would be bound to prove the ouster, as a material allegation in his declaration, it becomes, therefore, necessary to examine the extent of the admissions made by the tenant, by entering into the rule. The confession lias never been deemed to acknowledge that which is the substance of the action; as when the Plaintiff’s entry is necessary to complete his title,'as an entry to avoid a fine or the like ; there an actual entry must he shewn. The ouster confesses an expulsion from some…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Albertson v. . Redding's HeirsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1814