Patterson v. . Bodenhammer
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Guilford County at the Spring Term 1850, His Honor, Judge Battle, presiding. The following is the case sent up from the Court below: This was an action of trespass quare clausumfregit, to which the defendants pleaded not guilty. The plaintiff relied upon both an actual and construe» tive possession of the locus in quo, at the time when the trespass was alleged to have been committed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Guilford County at the Spring Term 1850, His Honor, Judge Battle, presiding. The following is the case sent up from the Court below: This was an action of trespass quare clausumfregit, to which the defendants pleaded not guilty. The plaintiff relied upon both an actual and construe» tive possession of the locus in quo, at the time when the trespass was alleged to have been committed. To show a constructive possession, founded oil title, he produced a grant to John Talbot, dated in 1847, and a deed from Talbot to George Mendenhall, dated in 1793. He…
1Opinion of the CourtNash, J.
The judgment in this case must be reversed. The plaintiff has shown neither an actual or constructive possession of the premises in question. To avail himself of the latter, he must prove the legal title in himself at the time the alleged trespass was committed. In this he lias not succeeded, and the jury were so instructed by his Honor, who tried the cause. It is however, in the second branch of the charge, that the error lies, of which the defendants complains. After informing the jury that the legal title was not in the plaintiff, the charge proceeds, “that if the evidence is believed, the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Matthews v. ForrestSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Drake v. . HowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
- Drake v. HowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
- Gordner v. Blades Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1907