Holley v. Smith.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Holley v. Smith.

40 S.E. 847, 130 N.C. 85, 1902 N.C. LEXIS 23

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 18, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 40 S.E. 847 (Holley v. Smith.) 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

Holley v. Smith., 40 S.E. 847, 130 N.C. 85, 1902 N.C. LEXIS 23 (N.C. 1902).

Pincite

Opinions

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff entered the land "covered by the waters of Chowan River, which was then and is now a navigable river," with boundaries described, within which is the locusin quo (which is front of defendant's land), and obtained a grant from the State therefor, and that the defendant daily trespasses thereon (86) by setting dutch and pound nets to catch fish; that this interferes with plaintiff's seining at that place; that defendant has no property above his exemptions, and seeks damages and injunction against further trespass.

At the trial the defendant offered to show that the grant to the plaintiff was null and void because if the dividing line between the plaintiff and defendant were extended in a straight line, run at a right angle to the shore line, the locus in quo was in front of defendant's land. The plaintiff objected on the ground that the grant could not be collaterally attacked. Objection sustained, and defendant excepted. Verdict for damages. Judgment therefor, and perpetual injunction.

It is true that a grant for land lying in a county to which the entry laws apply can not be attacked collaterally for fraud or mistake in procuring such grant. Dosh v. Lumber Co., 128 N.C. 84. But it is equally well settled that when the grant covers land not subject to entry, or is issued contrary to a positive prohibition contained in a statute, it is void, and can be attacked collaterally. Gilchrist v. Middleton,107 N.C. 663; Lovingood v. Burgess, 44 N.C. 407; Stanmire v. Powell,35 N.C. 312. All of these cases are cited with approval in Dosh v. LumberCo., supra. The land here in question, as was admitted on the trial, is covered by the navigable waters of the Chowan River, and therefore it was not subject to entry, except for wharves by the adjacent riparian *Page 61 owner in front of his own property (Code, sec. 2751, subsec. 1), and even then subject to restrictions. Bond v. Wood, 107 N.C. 139. Section 2755 denounces every entry made and every grant issued in violation of the provisions of that chapter (2. Code, ch. 17) as void. In excluding the evidence offered, there was

Error.

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

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff entered the land "covered by the waters of Chowan River, which was then and is now a navigable river," with boundaries described, within which is the locusin quo (which is front of defendant's land), and obtained a grant from the State therefor, and that the defendant daily trespasses thereon (86) by setting dutch and pound nets to catch fish; that this interferes with plaintiff's seining at that place; that defendant has no property above his exemptions, and seeks damages and injunction against further trespass.

At the trial the defendant offered to show that the grant to the plaintiff was null and void because if the dividing line between the plaintiff and defendant were extended in a straight line, run at a right angle to the shore line, the locus in quo was in front of defendant's land. The plaintiff objected on the ground that the grant could not be collaterally attacked. Objection sustained, and defendant excepted. Verdict for damages. Judgment therefor, and perpetual injunction.

It is true that a grant for land lying in a county to which the entry laws apply can not be attacked collaterally for fraud or mistake in procuring such grant. Dosh v. Lumber Co., 128 N.C. 84. But it is equally well settled that when the grant covers land not subject to entry, or is issued contrary to a positive prohibition contained in a statute, it is void, and can be attacked collaterally. Gilchrist v. Middleton,107 N.C. 663; Lovingood v. Burgess, 44 N.C. 407; Stanmire v. Powell,35 N.C. 312. All of these cases are cited with approval in Dosh v. LumberCo., supra. The land here in question, as was admitted on the trial, is covered by the navigable waters of the Chowan River, and therefore it was not subject to entry, except for wharves by the adjacent riparian *Page 61 owner in front of his own property (Code, sec. 2751, subsec. 1), and even then subject to restrictions. Bond v. Wood, 107 N.C. 139. Section 2755 denounces every entry made and every grant issued in violation of the provisions of that chapter (2. Code, ch. 17) as void. In excluding the evidence offered, there was

Error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 S.E. 847, 130 N.C. 85, 1902 N.C. LEXIS 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holley-v-smith-nc-1902.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack