Ashfield v. . Ashfield
This text of 1 N.C. 774 (Ashfield v. . Ashfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of King's Bench primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The court agreed that it was no disseizin, viz., that the least of a copyholder, without license, is no disseizin to the lord. But the counsel were directed to argue the question whether it should be void in respect of the forfeiture. Afterwards it was debated afresh, and held that the lease was not void; but judgment given against the infant. JONES, J., said on the first day, in the C. B. leave without license had been adjudged no disseizin. Nota that the plea was adjudged vicious in form, as well as the bar, replication, and declaration. Jones, 157; Noy, 92; Godb., 456, 364; 1 Cr., 498; Mo., 392; 1 Roll., 507, 508; Ow., 63; Godb., 456.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 N.C. 774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashfield-v-ashfield-kingsbench-1793.