Stanly v. Biddle
| Decision Date | 30 June 1859 |
| Citation | 4 Jones 383,57 N.C. 383 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | E. R. STANLY v. S. S. BIDDLE. |
A prior entry of vacant land, not acted on, but abandoned, (under a misapprehension of its efficacy) although known to a subsequent enterer, who complies with the law and gets a grant from the State, can, in no degree, help out a still later entry and grant; for such abandoned entry becomes null and void after the time prescribed for its effectuation has expired.
There is no policy of the State which requires that an entry shall have lapsed before another can be made.
CAUSE removed from the Court of Equity of Craven county.
On the pleadings, it appears that on the 31st of May, 1855, the plaintiff made an entry, in Craven county, of 1000 acres of land, situated on the south side of Neuse River, and on both sides of the line of the Atlantic and North Carolina railroad, between the lands of Samuel S. Biddle and George West; that he then took out a warrant and soon after had the survey made, and that it was duly returned into the office of the Secretary of State, and on the 15th of December, 1856, he paid into the treasury the purchase-money of 1000 acres, and on the 24th of December, 1856, a grant was issued to him. On the 26th of October, 1855, the defendant made two entries of 1000 acres each, which covered the land entered by the plaintiff, or a part of it, and had surveys immediately made and returned, ascertaining the quantity of one tract to be 698 acres, and of the other 675 acres, and on the 30th of November, 1855, he paid the purchase-money into the treasury and got grants. At the time of the defendant's surveys and entries, he knew of the previous entry of the plaintiff, and the survey made under it, and although he was not informed of the particular lines of the plaintiff's survey, he was aware that his own entries covered a considerable part of the land included in the plaintiff's survey. Upon this state of facts, the bill (which was filed in April, 1857,) prays that the entry of the plaintiff may be declared the preferable one, and the defendant held to be a trustee for him, and decreed to convey to him accordingly.
The answer, however, states the further facts, that the defendant owning a plantation, which the vacant land adjoined, was desirous of acquiring the title to it, and that on the 28th of October, 1854, he made three entries for 640 acres each, which would include the land granted to the plaintiff, and took out warrants thereon, and presented them to one Marshall, the county surveyor, with the request that he would make the surveys without delay; that Marshall professing to have engagements, which put it out of his power to make the surveys shortly, authorised one Heath to make them, and engaged to sign the plats when brought to him; that Heath accordingly made them, but when presented to Marshall he declined signing them, upon the ground, that they included more than 640 acres each by his computation, (though in that he was mistaken) and he advised the defendant to make new entries of one thousand acres, and promised to make Heath's surveys fit them--expressing the opinion, that he would still thereby have a preference over the plaintiff's entry, which had then been made; and that under that advice and direction, the defendant abandoned his first entries, and made his subsequent entries, and got his grants thereon; and that the plaintiff, at the time he made his entry, was fully informed of those previous entries and surveys of the defendant. The answer then insists on the benefit of the defendant's first entries in support of the legal title derived through his grants.
Green for the plaintiff .
Haughton, Donnell and J. W. Bryan, for the defendant .
The Court does not find it necessary to advert to the testimony taken by the parties, since it does not vary the case admitted in the answer, and upon that and the exhibits, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree.
As between the entries on which the grants emanated, there is no doubt that of the plaintiff's is to be preferred. It is prior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowser v. Wescott
...later entry and grant, for such abandoned entry becomes null and void after the time prescribed for its effectuation has expired.-Stanly v. Biddle, 57 N.C. 383. [r] C. 1859) There is no policy of the state which requires that an entry shall have lapsed before another can be made.-Stanley v.......
-
Bowser v. Wescott.*
...later entry and grant, for such abandoned entry becomes null and void after the time prescribed for its effectuation has expired—Stanly v. Biddle, 57 N. C. 383. [r] (N. C. 1859) There is no policy of the state which requires that an entry shall have lapsed before another can be made.—Stanly......
-
Wyman v. Taylor
... ... equitable claim upon them, by reason of an entry, beyond the ... time limited by law for the perfection of title. Stanly ... v. Biddle, 57 N.C. 383; Plemmons v. Fore, 37 ... N.C. 312. The defendants can therefore derive no benefit or ... relief, at law or in equity, ... ...
-
Bealmear v. Hutchins
...to a conveyance from another person who obtained a prior grant under a junior entry with knowledge of the first entry.' In Stanly v. Biddle, 57 N.C. 383, 384, it was held, speaking of an entry: 'It is prior in time, and by subsequent payment of the purchase money in due time it gave the pla......