McCormick v. . Munroe
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Action of trespass, q. c. f., tried before Caxdwell, J., at the Special Term (Eeb. 1856,) of Cumberland Superior Court. The plaintiff offered in evidence a grant from the State to himself, for 500 acres of land, issued on the 15th of December, 1815, described in the annexed plat by the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G-, II, P, Q, E, S, and proved that the defendant had committed a trespass within these boundaries in the winter of 1853-1, by cutting and hauling therefrom a…
Read the full summary
Action of trespass, q. c. f., tried before Caxdwell, J., at the Special Term (Eeb. 1856,) of Cumberland Superior Court. The plaintiff offered in evidence a grant from the State to himself, for 500 acres of land, issued on the 15th of December, 1815, described in the annexed plat by the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G-, II, P, Q, E, S, and proved that the defendant had committed a trespass within these boundaries in the winter of 1853-1, by cutting and hauling therefrom a quantity of pine timber. It was proved that plaintiff took possession of the north part of this tract in 1850, and had…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
If the defendant were a mere wrong-doer, the entry of the plaintiff into the land covered by his grant, would have put him into possession of the whole of it, as against the defendant, notwithstanding the outstanding title of Blount’s heirs ; Osborne v. Ballew, 12 Ire. Rep. 373 ; Myrick v. Bishop, 1 Hawks’ Rep. 485. Whether the entry of the defendant claiming title under a junior grant -will make any difference, it is imnecessary to decide, since there is another well established rule which shows that the plaintiff was in possession, as against Blount’s heirs. The rale is this: if two grants…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cited by1 opinion
- State v. ThompsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1902