Shearman v. Irvine Lessee

Decision Date01 February 1808
Citation8 U.S. 367,4 Cranch 367,2 L.Ed. 649
PartiesSHEARMAN v. IRVINE'S LESSEE
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Georgia, in an action of ejectment, brought (on the 15th of October, 1804,) by Irvine's lessee against Shearman, for a tract of land in Camden county, in the state of Georgia.

The defendant below took a bill of exceptions to the refusal of the court, to non suit the plaintiff on the trial, because he had not proved 'an entry within seven years after the title of the grantees accrued, or any entry by either of the heirs or persons claiming under the grantees within seven years after their titles respectively accrued.'

The lessor of the plaintiff had produced in evidence two grants from the province of Georgia, in 1766, to Alexander Baillie, under whom he claimed title by descent, and whose heir at law he had proved himself to be.

There was no evidence of title, or even of adverse possession on the part of the defendant, before the bringing of the suit, other than the averment of ouster, in the declaration, which was laid on the 10th of September, 1804; nor any evidence of title out of the lessor of the plaintiff.

In support of his motion for a nonsuit, the defendant relied on the act of limitations of Georgia, passed in the year 1767, by which it is enacted 'That all writs of formedon in descender, remainder, and reverter of any lands, &c. or any other writ, suit or action, whatsoever hereafter to be sued or brought by occasion, or means of any title heretofore accrued, happened, or fallen, or which may hereafter descend, happen, or fall, shall be sued or taken within seven years next after the passing of this act, or after the title and cause of action shall or may descend or accrue to the same, and at no time after the said seven years. And that no person or persons that now hath, or have any right or title of entry into any lands, &c. shall at any time hereafter make any entry, but within seven years next after the passing of this act, or after his or their right or title, shall or may descend or accrue to the same, and in default thereof, such person so not entering, and their heirs, shall be utterly excluded and disabled from such entry after to be made.'

The verdict and judgment below, being against the defendant, he sued out his writ of error.

There being no appearance in this court for the plaintiff in error,

P. B. Key, for the defendant in error, opened the record, and prayed an affirmance of the judgment;

1. Because from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Grayson v. Harris
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 8, 1929
    ...by the courts of Arkansas, it began to run against (the plaintiff) when (the defendant) took possession.' And see Shearman v. Irvine's Lessee, 4 Cranch, 367, 369, 2 L. Ed. 649, involving the construction of a similar Georgia In view of our conclusion as to the construction and effect of sec......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT