Freeman v. Loftis
| Decision Date | 31 August 1859 |
| Citation | 6 Jones 524,51 N.C. 524 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Doe ex dem M. FREEMAN et al v. A. J. LOFTIS et. al. |
The act of 1803, for running the boundary line between this State and South Carolina was intended to confirm, and did confirm the first grants by either State within the disputed territory, and all territory must be considered disputed, for which the respective States had opened land-offices and issued grants.
Twenty-one years continued possession of land, the title of which, is passed from the State, begun by A as purchaser from B, and held throughout by him (A) as the owner, creates the presumption of a conveyance to him, A, from any and all persons.
There is no presumption, in law, that one bearing the name of the son of a person seized of land, is the heir, or one of the heirs of a particular ancestor, but the question of identity is one of fact, to be determined by the jury upon the concomitant circumstances, such as the identity of name-- residence of the claimant, and that of the other members of the family.
ACTION of EJECTMENT, tried before MANLY, J., at the last Spring Term of Henderson Superior Court.
The premises lie in Henderson county, and the declaration contains a count on the demise of Meredith Freeman, and one on the demises of several persons, who are the heirs of Jacob Phillips.
On the trial, the plaintiff gave in evidence a grant for the premises, containing 500 acres, from the State of South Carolina to William Reade, bearing date 2nd April, 1798, and purporting that the premises were in South Carolina, and a conveyance from Reade to Jacob Phillips, bearing date the 3rd of June, 1799. And the plaintiff further gave evidence, that said Phillips entered under his deed and remained in possession ten years, and then Moses Smith entered and continued in possession twenty-one years, claiming the premises as his own absolutely, under a purchase from Phillips. That Smith then went off and left the place vacant, and that he had a son by the name of Joseph. And the plaintiff further gave in evidence a deed from one Joseph Smith, of Alabama, to Meredith Freeman, one of the lessors of the plaintiff, bearing date December 17th, 1851, and in consideration of $50, conveying all the right and title of the said Joseph, the bargainor, of and in the premises in fee simple with special warranty.
Thereupon, the Court instructed the jury, that there was no statute in this State, confirming the grants of South Carolina, for lands in North Carolina, and, therefore, the grant to Reade was inoperative, and that the possession of Smith could not be connected with the prior possession of Phillips, so as to divest the title out of the State and vest it in Phillips; and furthermore, that there was no presumption in law from the name, merely, that Joseph Smith, who made the deed to Freeman, was the Joseph, who was the son of Moses Smith; but that the question of identity was one of fact, to be determined by the jury, from the identity of name and other circumstances. The plaintiff excepted to the instructions, suffered a nonsuit, and appealed.
Shipp, for the plaintiffs .
Hoke and Dixon, for the defendants .
It may be remarked on the first point, that one of the early acts, that of 1803, for running the line between this State and South Carolina, and appointing commissioners for that purpose, has a proviso, that the extension of the line shall not affect the title of any person to lands entered in either of the States. It would rather seem, that those words are sufficient in themselves to confirm titles to lands, that fell...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nicholson v. Eureka Lumber Co
...plaintiff's deed and Sadie Delany, the sole surviving grandchild and heir at law of James Windley, were one and the same person. Freeman v. Loftis, 51 N. C. 524; 1 Greenleaf (10th Ed.) § 43 a; Lawson, Presumptive Evidence, p. 309; 16 Cyc. p. 1055. It was further objected that the acknowledg......
- McLane v. Moore