TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Den Ex Dem. Burton v. Carruth

DEN Ex Dem. of ROBERT H. BURTON, Et. Al. v. JOHN CARRUTH

Den Ex Dem. Burton v. Carruth, 18 N.C. 2 (1834)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 5, 1834
Judges
Daniel
Citations
18 N.C. 2
Headnotes
The cutting grass in a meadow for seven years successively, stacking it on the land and fencing the stacks, will, with colour of title, bar the entry of one claiming adversely.
Summary
Ejectment tried before his Honour Judge Martin, at Lincoln, on the last Circuit. On the trial, it appeared that the land in dispute was patented in the year 1768 by Gillespie. Sloan conveyed the same land to Robert Wear, in the year 1798, and Wear to the lessors of the plaintiff, in the year 1826. To show that Gillespie, or his heirs, had lost their right of entry, and that the title to the land was completely vested in Wear, by the act of 1715, (Rev. ch. 2,) the lessors of the plaintiff proved, that the grass of a meadow on the premises was mowed each successive year, for seven years, by Wear, or by persons authorised by him, and stacked on the ground, with a fence around the stacks. The question was, whether this was such a possession, as with his colourable title, gave Wear a good and valid title. The Judge instructed the jury that it was. A verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Daniel

Daniel, Judge, after stating the case as above, proceeded : — We are of opinion that the instruction given by the Judge was correct. The seven years continued perception of the profits of the land, by Wear under his deed, by cutting the grass off the meadow, and stacking it on the land and fencing the stacks, was a possession under circumstances, sufficiently capable in their nature of notifying all persons, that he was upon the land claiming it as his own, Den v. Mulford, 1 Hay. 320 ;

Grant v. Winborne, 2 Hay. 56 . 76. The claim, or entry of Gillespie, or his heirs, or any person claiming under him, was, by the act of 1715, - (Rev. ch.

2, sec. 4), perpetually barred ; and the title became perfect and complete in Wear, so as to enable him to convey to the lessors of the plaintiff.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1840–1841: 11912–1913: 11914–1915: 11916–1917: 21918–1919: 218402026peak 1916 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Locklear v. Savage74 S.E. 347 (N.C. 1912)
  2. Alexander v. Richmond Cedar Works177 N.C. 137 (1919)
  3. Alexander v. Cedar Works98 S.E. 312 (N.C. 1919)
  4. Cross v. R. R.90 S.E. 14 (N.C. 1916)
  5. McCaskill v. Pegram Farm & Lumber Co.85 S.E. 39 (N.C. 1915)
  6. Cross v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.90 S.E. 14 (N.C. 1916)

Most recent

  1. Alexander v. Cedar Works98 S.E. 312 (N.C. 1919)
  2. Alexander v. Richmond Cedar Works177 N.C. 137 (1919)
  3. Cross v. R. R.90 S.E. 14 (N.C. 1916)
  4. Cross v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.90 S.E. 14 (N.C. 1916)
  5. McCaskill v. Pegram Farm & Lumber Co.85 S.E. 39 (N.C. 1915)
  6. Locklear v. Savage74 S.E. 347 (N.C. 1912)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list