Den on Demise of Murphy v. Barnett

6 N.C. 251
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 5, 1813·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Taylor, Chief-Justice,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

M e think the decision of this case rests on a plain principle of law ; and that as h ,+h parties claim directly from Thomas Barnett, they are privies in estate, and it ■ is not competent to either, as such, to deny his title. Tiie Defendant has accepted a deed from him, which admits the title, and estops him from denying it afterwards for a person may be estopped by matter in pais, as wel, as by indenture or writing. The doctrine as applied to tills case, appears highly reasonable, since nothing bnt *253 ihe truth ought to be alledged by any man in his de-fence, and what he has alledged must be presumed to be true, and he ought not to contradict it. a new trial be discharged. Let the rale for

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Den on Demise of Murphy v. Barnett, 6 N.C. 251 (N.C. 1813).

6 N.C. 251 (Den on Demise of Murphy v. Barnett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stewart v. . Cary
17 S.E.2d 29 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
Mordecai v. . Oliver
10 N.C. 479 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1825)
Murphy v. . Barnett
4 N.C. 14 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1813)
Gray v. . Harrison
3 N.C. 292 (Superior Court of North Carolina, 1804)