From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Strudwick v. Shaw

Superior Court of North Carolina HILLSBOROUGH
Oct 1, 1791
1 N.C. 35 (N.C. Super. 1791)

Opinion

October Term, 1791.

Right of possession lost by lapse of time.

The land in dispute was granted to A. in 1728, who sold to B. in 1730, and B. some time afterwards went to England. B. sold to C., who came to Carolina, where he remained till 1787, when he brought suit. One D. settled on the land in 1751, lived upon it thirteen years, and died in possession, leaving a son. The son assigned to some person, who assigned to the defendant, who had lately procured a grant. Under these circumstance it was held that the plaintiff's jus possessionis was lost.


NOTE. — See this case reported in 2 N.C. 5. Also see Blair v. Miller, 13 N.C. 407; Green v. Harman, 15 N.C. 158; Burton v. Carruth, 18 N.C. 2; Carson v. Burnett, ibid., 546; Pickett v. Pickett, 14 N.C. 6; Hoke v. Henderson, ibid., 12; Rogers v. Mabe, 15 N.C. 180; Dobson v. Murphy, 18 N.C. 586; Dobson v. Erwin, 20 N.C. 201; Murray v. Shanklin, ibid., 289; Ross v. Durham, ibid., 54; Tredwell v. Reddick, 23 N.C. 56; Flanniken v. Lee, ibid., 293; Williams v. Buchanan, ibid., 535.

(36)


Summaries of

Strudwick v. Shaw

Superior Court of North Carolina HILLSBOROUGH
Oct 1, 1791
1 N.C. 35 (N.C. Super. 1791)
Case details for

Strudwick v. Shaw

Case Details

Full title:STRUDWICK v. SHAW. — 1 Mart., 34

Court:Superior Court of North Carolina HILLSBOROUGH

Date published: Oct 1, 1791

Citations

1 N.C. 35 (N.C. Super. 1791)

Citing Cases

Merrielles v. Bank

4. The court erred in submitting to the jury the laws of Iowa to create a liability against the separate real…

Armour v. White

Verdict and judgment for the defendant. NOTE. — See this case, ante, 69, and see the note to the case of…