Den, on the Demise of Stringer v. Philips

Superior Court of North Carolina

Den, on the Demise of Stringer v. Philips

3 N.C. 158

DecidedJanuary 5, 1802

StatusPublished

This text of 3 N.C. 158 (Den, on the Demise of Stringer v. Philips) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Den, on the Demise of Stringer v. Philips, 3 N.C. 158 (N.C. Ct. App. 1802).

Pincite

Opinion

Johniton, Judge.

The twenty-sixth article of our constitution declares all the lands within the bounds of this state to he-long to the collective body of the people ; making exceptions in favor of those who had already obtained grants from the king or lords proprietors ; which exceptions extend onlv to those who were parties to that instrument — the freemen of Korth-Carolma. AU others are out oí the exceptions, consequently all British subjects, and no one who was then a British subject had title to any lands within this state after that period. It will be said, why then confiscate the lands of British subjects? I answer, the confiscation acts considered that some who were then British subjects, might be willing to become citisens, and to join their efforts for the common defence. The Assembly meant to retain, and actually reserved the power of restoring to such the rights* which to them once belonged., if within the limited time they would apply for that purpose; and with respect to such as did net apply within time, it was proper, aacl indeed necessary, to appropriate their estates to the common defence ; the mode of doing which was. pointed out by those acts, without which the property would have remained unused.

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

Johniton, Judge.

The twenty-sixth article of our constitution declares all the lands within the bounds of this state to he-long to the collective body of the people ; making exceptions in favor of those who had already obtained grants from the king or lords proprietors ; which exceptions extend onlv to those who were parties to that instrument — the freemen of Korth-Carolma. AU others are out oí the exceptions, consequently all British subjects, and no one who was then a British subject had title to any lands within this state after that period. It will be said, why then confiscate the lands of British subjects? I answer, the confiscation acts considered that some who were then British subjects, might be willing to become citisens, and to join their efforts for the common defence. The Assembly meant to retain, and actually reserved the power of restoring to such the rights* which to them once belonged., if within the limited time they would apply for that purpose; and with respect to such as did net apply within time, it was proper, aacl indeed necessary, to appropriate their estates to the common defence ; the mode of doing which was. pointed out by those acts, without which the property would have remained unused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.C. 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/den-on-the-demise-of-stringer-v-philips-ncsuperct-1802.