Den on the demise of the heirs of Mordecai v. Oliver

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Den on the demise of the heirs of Mordecai v. Oliver

10 N.C. 479

DecidedJune 15, 1825

StatusPublished

This text of 10 N.C. 479 (Den on the demise of the heirs of Mordecai v. Oliver) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme 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 the heirs of Mordecai v. Oliver, 10 N.C. 479 (N.C. 1825).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, Judge.

In the case of Alberton v. Redding’s heirs, (1 Law Repos. 274.) the Court decided, that in the action of ejectment, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove the defendant in actual possession of the lands sued for, because it was presumable that the defendant was not so well acquainted with the boundaries of the land set forth in the plaintiff’s declaration, as the plaintiff was with the defendant’s actual possession. I approve of that decision; but the present case is different from it. In this case, the Judge told the jury that if defendant claimed to be in possession, or claimed the lands in controversy, and entered himself a defendant with a view of maintaining such claim, that was sufficient to maintain the plaintiff’s action; by which I understand the Judge to say, that if the defendant admitted himself to be in possession of the lands sued for (not by entering into the common rule) by proof made for that purpose, quoad hoc, the action was maintainable. Of this opinion was the rest of the court, fend .

The judgment was aeeirmed.

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

Hall, Judge.

In the case of Alberton v. Redding’s heirs, (1 Law Repos. 274.) the Court decided, that in the action of ejectment, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove the defendant in actual possession of the lands sued for, because it was presumable that the defendant was not so well acquainted with the boundaries of the land set forth in the plaintiff’s declaration, as the plaintiff was with the defendant’s actual possession. I approve of that decision; but the present case is different from it. In this case, the Judge told the jury that if defendant claimed to be in possession, or claimed the lands in controversy, and entered himself a defendant with a view of maintaining such claim, that was sufficient to maintain the plaintiff’s action; by which I understand the Judge to say, that if the defendant admitted himself to be in possession of the lands sued for (not by entering into the common rule) by proof made for that purpose, quoad hoc, the action was maintainable. Of this opinion was the rest of the court, fend .

The judgment was aeeirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 N.C. 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/den-on-the-demise-of-the-heirs-of-mordecai-v-oliver-nc-1825.