Daniel, Judge, after stating the case as above, proceeded : — We are of opinion that the instruction given by the Judge was correct. The seven years continued perception of the profits of the land, by Wear under his deed, by cutting the grass off the meadow, and stacking it on the land and fencing the stacks, was a possession under circumstances, sufficiently capable in their nature of notifying all persons, that he was upon the land claiming it as his own, Den v. Mulford, 1 Hay. 320; Grant v. Winborne, 2 Hay. 56. 76. The claim, or entry of Gillespie, or his heirs, or any person claiming under him, was, by the act of 1715, - (Rev. ch. 2, sec. 4), perpetually barred ; and the title became perfect and complete in Wear, so as to enable him to convey to the lessors of the plaintiff.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Den Ex Dem. Burton v. Carruth. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 8 opinions
BURTONv. CARRUTH,18 N.C. 2(1834)
DEN ex dem. of ROBERT H. BURTON,et. al. v. JOHN CARRUTH.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
The cutting grass in a meadow for seven years successively, stacking it on the land and fencing the stacks, will, with colour of title, bar the entry of one claiming adversely.
EJECTMENT tried before his Honour Judge MARTIN, at Lincoln, on the last Circuit. On the trial, it appeared that the land in dispute was patented in the year 1768 by Gillespie. Sloan conveyed the same land to Robert Wear, in the year 1798, and Wear to the lessors of the plaintiff, in the year 1826. To show that Gillespie, or his heirs, had lost their right of entry, and that the title to the land was completely vested in Wear, by the act of 1715, (Rev. ch. 2,) the lessors of the plaintiff proved, that the grass of a meadow on the premises was mowed each successive year, for seven years, by Wear, or by persons authorised by him, and stacked on the ground, with a fence around the stacks. The question was, whether this was such a possession, as with his colourable title, gave Wear a good and valid title. The Judge instructed the jury that it was.Page 3A verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
No counsel appeared for the defendant.Nash, for the plaintiff.
DANIEL, Judge, after stating the case as above, proceeded:
— We are of opinion that the instruction given by the Judge was correct. The seven years continued perception of the profits of the land, by Wear under his deed, by cutting the grass off the meadow, and stacking it on the land and fencing the stacks, was a possession under circumstances, sufficiently capable in their nature of notifying all persons, that he was upon the land claiming it as his own,Den v. Mulford, 1 Hay. 320;Grant v. Winborne, 2 Hay. 56. 76. The claim, or entry of Gillespie, or his heirs, or any person claiming under him, was, by the act of 1715, (Rev. ch. 2, sec. 4), perpetually barred; and the title became perfect and complete in Wear, so as to enable him to convey to the lessors of the plaintiff.
PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.