Lawrence v. . Pitt
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an action of Ejectment, tried before bis Honor Judge Caldwell, at tbe Spring Term 1854, of Edgecombe Superior Court.
Read the full summary
This was an action of Ejectment, tried before bis Honor Judge Caldwell, at tbe Spring Term 1854, of Edgecombe Superior Court. The plaintiff claimed tbe right to enter upon an undivided fifth part of the tract of land set forth in the declaration, and the following facts are submitted as a case agreed: “ Noah Little died intestate, in the year 1824, seized of a tract of land, leaving Mary E. Little his widow, and the following children, who were his only heirs at law, to wit: Joseph J. Little, Cullen Little, Wm. G-. Little, Elisha Little, Patsy Howard and Amariah Little. At the November Term,…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
The facts stated in the case agreed, present the question, whether the reversionary estate in lands in fee simple, after a life estate in the same is to be regulated in its descent by the sixth rule in our canons of inheritance in the same manner as if it were an estate in possession. The solution of this question depends upon the sense in which the word “ seized ” is used in those canons. This word is a well known term of the common law, signifying the possession or occupation of the soil by a free man or freeholder, one who has at least a life estate in the land, 2 Black. Com. 104. Seizin…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bates v. ShraederNew York Supreme Court · 1816
3Cited by8 opinions
- Power Co. v. . HaywoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- Tyndall v. . TyndallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- Carolina Power Co. v. HaywoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- Early v. Early.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Roberts v. . CannonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1838
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.