Osborne v. . Ballew

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Osborne v. . Ballew

34 N.C. 373

DecidedAugust 5, 1851

StatusPublished

This text of 34 N.C. 373 (Osborne v. . Ballew) 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

Osborne v. . Ballew, 34 N.C. 373 (N.C. 1851).

Pincite

Opinion

Although as between two persons claiming under deeds which interfere, the possession be with the better title unless the other party have an actual possession within the disputed part, yet, as applied to the case of a mere wrongdoer, the instructions conform to our adjudications, and seem, indeed, to follow from the doctrine of constructive possession, which is indispensable, in the present state of the country, to the protection of peaceable possessors and claimants against lawless intrusions. Wyrick v.Bishop, 8 N.C. 485, is in point, and gives very satisfactory reasons why an entry under a deed into a part of a tract of land should, as against a mere wrongdoer, be considered an entry into the whole, it not appearing that any one else has possession of any part.

PER CURIAM. No error. *Page 257 Cited: McCormick v. Munroe, 48 N.C. 334; Lamb v. Swain, id., 372;Aycock v. R. R., 89 N.C. 324; Thornton v. R. R., 150 N.C. 693; Simmonsv. Box Co., 153 N.C. 261; Ray v. Anders, 164 N.C. 314.

(375)

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

Although as between two persons claiming under deeds which interfere, the possession be with the better title unless the other party have an actual possession within the disputed part, yet, as applied to the case of a mere wrongdoer, the instructions conform to our adjudications, and seem, indeed, to follow from the doctrine of constructive possession, which is indispensable, in the present state of the country, to the protection of peaceable possessors and claimants against lawless intrusions. Wyrick v.Bishop, 8 N.C. 485, is in point, and gives very satisfactory reasons why an entry under a deed into a part of a tract of land should, as against a mere wrongdoer, be considered an entry into the whole, it not appearing that any one else has possession of any part.

PER CURIAM. No error. *Page 257 Cited: McCormick v. Munroe, 48 N.C. 334; Lamb v. Swain, id., 372;Aycock v. R. R., 89 N.C. 324; Thornton v. R. R., 150 N.C. 693; Simmonsv. Box Co., 153 N.C. 261; Ray v. Anders, 164 N.C. 314.

(375)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.C. 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osborne-v-ballew-nc-1851.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack