Hopkins v. Empire Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hopkins v. Empire Lumber Co.

78 S.E. 286, 162 N.C. 533, 1913 N.C. LEXIS 393

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 28, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 78 S.E. 286 (Hopkins v. Empire Lumber Co.) 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

Hopkins v. Empire Lumber Co., 78 S.E. 286, 162 N.C. 533, 1913 N.C. LEXIS 393 (N.C. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

PeR OueiaM.

Tbis action is brought to recover damages for trespass upon three tracts of land. These three tracts have definite points called for, which are sufficient, when proven, to locate the lands conveyed.

We think the evidence amply sufficient for that purpose, and that the matter is largely one of fact, and was properly submitted to the jury.

The plaintiff introduced three grants and connected himself with them, but, in deraigning his title, introduced a copy from the registration books of a deed from Lyman W. Gilbert to W. H. Peet, dated 1861, March 1st. There is no seal after the grantor’s name, but the instrument concludes as follows: “In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my seal, this the first day of March, 1861.”

In case of an ancient deed which is not produced, but is proved from the record, which fails to indicate in any way that the deed was sealed, there is a presumption that the deed was sealed, arising from a recital in the instrument itself that it is sealed. Jones on Beal Property, secs. 1073-1075; Aycock v. R. *534 R., 89 N. C., 323; Heath v. Cotton Mills, 115 N. C., 202; Strain v. Fitzgerald, 130 N. C., 601; Smith v. Lumber Co., 144 N. C., 50; Edwards v. Supply Co., 150 N. C., 176; Beardsly v. Day, 52 Minn., 451; Smith v. Dall, 13 Cal., 510.

Upon a review of the record we find

No error.

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

PeR OueiaM.

Tbis action is brought to recover damages for trespass upon three tracts of land. These three tracts have definite points called for, which are sufficient, when proven, to locate the lands conveyed.

We think the evidence amply sufficient for that purpose, and that the matter is largely one of fact, and was properly submitted to the jury.

The plaintiff introduced three grants and connected himself with them, but, in deraigning his title, introduced a copy from the registration books of a deed from Lyman W. Gilbert to W. H. Peet, dated 1861, March 1st. There is no seal after the grantor’s name, but the instrument concludes as follows: “In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my seal, this the first day of March, 1861.”

In case of an ancient deed which is not produced, but is proved from the record, which fails to indicate in any way that the deed was sealed, there is a presumption that the deed was sealed, arising from a recital in the instrument itself that it is sealed. Jones on Beal Property, secs. 1073-1075; Aycock v. R. *534 R., 89 N. C., 323; Heath v. Cotton Mills, 115 N. C., 202; Strain v. Fitzgerald, 130 N. C., 601; Smith v. Lumber Co., 144 N. C., 50; Edwards v. Supply Co., 150 N. C., 176; Beardsly v. Day, 52 Minn., 451; Smith v. Dall, 13 Cal., 510.

Upon a review of the record we find

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.E. 286, 162 N.C. 533, 1913 N.C. LEXIS 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopkins-v-empire-lumber-co-nc-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack