{
  "id": 11276463,
  "name": "Charles Phelps v. James Blount",
  "name_abbreviation": "Phelps v. Blount",
  "decision_date": "1829-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "177",
  "last_page": "178",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Dev. 177"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 N.C. 177"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 162,
    "char_count": 2033,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.335,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.486189795236172e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5180825214134106
    },
    "sha256": "23efce0af98fb44a7cbb0a0e98f03434ed53b10a7538634fd438bb5e381488b0",
    "simhash": "1:748f601af7081245",
    "word_count": 351
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:37.349944+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles Phelps v. James Blount."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Henderson, Chief-Justice.\nI think the Judge erred in not extending the estoppel to Blount, for the case states, that Swain and the Defendant, under Swain\u2019s pretended title, entered upon the land. Now it appears to me, that if Swain is estopped from setting up title, in himself, that Blount, who acted under that title, or to use the words of the case, the pretended title of Swain, is equally estopped; and that a title by estoppel, will, as to them estopped, as well as a title against the world, draw to it the possession. Which constructive possession, according to our notions, supports the action of trespass.\nPer Curiam. \u2014 Let the judgment below be reversed, and a new trial granted.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Henderson, Chief-Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No Counsel appeared for either party in this Court.*"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles Phelps v. James Blount.\nFrom Washington.\nOne claiming title under a party who is estopped to deny the title of the Plaintiff, is also bound by that estoppel.\nHe who claims a title by estoppel, is as .to those estopped, in the constructive possession of the land, and may maintain trespass.\nTrespass q,uare ceausum pub git, tried before his honor Judge Strange, on the last Fall Circuit.\nThe locus in quo was a cypress swamp, which had never been in the actual possession of any one.\nThe Plaintiff offered no evidence, of title, but the will: of one Eleazjcr Swain, by which the land was devised to his son Thomas Swain, and a judgment and execution against the latter with a Sheriff\u2019s deed to himself. He then offered to prove, that Thomas Swain and the De-fcndaut, under If.Is pretended title, entered upon the land, and o'ot a large, quantity of shingles, for which trespass *\" the. action was brought.\nJune, 1829.\njjut his Honor thinking that the Plaintiff, fo entitle him to recover, ought either to prove an actual possession, or a good and sufficient title, to give him a constructive possession, and that although Thomas Swain might be estopped to deny his title, yet that the estoppel did riot extend to the Defendant \u2014 nonsuited the Plaintiff, who appealed to this Court.\nNo Counsel appeared for either party in this Court.*"
  },
  "file_name": "0177-01",
  "first_page_order": 193,
  "last_page_order": 194
}