TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Doe on Dem. of Howell v. Buie

Doe on Dem. of J. W. Howell and Others v. Allen Buie.

Doe on Dem. of Howell v. Buie, 64 N.C. 446 (1870)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 5, 1870
Judges
Beade
Citations
64 N.C. 446
Headnotes
The act of February 10th 1863, (ch. 34,,) by suspending the statute of limitations, prevented a possession of land extending from October 15th 1845 to January 16th 1868, from barring the State under the act giving such operation to twenty-one years’ possession with color of title.
Summary
Ejectment, tried before Buxton, J., at Spring Term 1870 of Moore Court. The facts appear in the Opinion. Verdict, &c., for the defendant; and the plaintiff 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 — Beade

Beade, J.

The lessor of the plaintiff claims title under a grant from the State, dated August 12th 1867. The defendant claims title by virtue of twenty-one years’ possession under color of title, and known and visible boundaries: Eev. Code, ch. 65, s. 2. Defendant had such possession from October 15th 1845, to January 1868; more than twenty-one years. The plaintiff replies to this, that the act of February 10th 1863, chap. 34, suspends the statute of limitation in the Bevised Code, supra :

and that is the only question in the case. That act is as follows : “In computations of time for the purpose of applying any statute limiting any action or suit, or any right or rights, or for the purpose of raising any presumption of any release, payment or satisfaction, or any grant or conveyance, the time elapsed since May 20th 1861, or which may elapse until the end of the present war, •shall be excluded from such computation.”

At the time of the passage of that act the defendant had had possession for less than sixteen years. Add the time of his possession after the war, and it still makes less than twenty-one years : and therefore the State, under which the plaintiff claims, was not barred by the statute of limitations. If it had appeared in the case, as probably the fact is, that those under whom the defendant claims had had possession for such length of time as added to the defendant’s possession would have made twenty-one years up to the act of 1863, the defendant’s title would be good. If the fact is so, then it may avail the defendant in a subsequent proceeding, but not as the case is now before us.

There is no error.

Pee Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1874–1875: 11878–1879: 118742026peak 1874 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kitchen v. Wilson80 N.C. 191 (1879)
  2. Benbow v. Robbins71 N.C. 338 (1874)

Most recent

  1. Kitchen v. Wilson80 N.C. 191 (1879)
  2. Benbow v. Robbins71 N.C. 338 (1874)

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