{
  "id": 8695269,
  "name": "DEN ON DEM. OF SARAH HARRIS et al. v. JAMES J. MAXWELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Den on dem. Harris v. Maxwell",
  "decision_date": "1839-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "241",
  "last_page": "243",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Dev. & Bat. 241"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "20 N.C. 241"
    }
  ],
  "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": 335,
    "char_count": 5847,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.495,
    "sha256": "e9d9d8b5648a0a62852eb18db020e0b1bff9fa1ccff329cc583116f2df706bf1",
    "simhash": "1:48c80f025b78a74b",
    "word_count": 1023
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:59:24.594429+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DEN ON DEM. OF SARAH HARRIS et al. v. JAMES J. MAXWELL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Daniel, Judge.\nMaps and surveys are often referred to by deeds of conveyance, and then, whether mechanically annexe(^ or not) they incorporated parts of the descrip-contained in those deeds. Bridgman v. Jennings, 1 Lord Raym. 734\u20141 Phil. Ev. 203\u20141 Strange\u2019s Rep. 95\u2014 Burton on Real Property, 142. But, without this Court now stopping to decide the question, whether the survey or map could legally be given in evidence by the plaintiffs as a part the Sheriff\u2019s deed to Harris, executed in the year 1795, as the maP> 'w\u2019as not registered with the Sheriff\u2019s deed, still, we think, there is a point in the case, which is clearly in fa-vour of the lessomof the plaintiff The Judge charged the \u201c that they were satisfied that the lessors of the plain-tig* and those under whom they claimed had been thirty-five J J years in possession, before the action brought, of the land circumscribed by the plat referred to in the'Sheriff\u2019s deed to James Harris, and that during that time lines and aries of said land were known and visible, and the lessors of ' * the plaintiff and those under whom they held, claimed up to them; they were at liberty to presume a grant for the land to have issued up to those boundaries \u2014 although the actual possession or enclosure of the occupants might not have extended to the lines \u2014 the possession, in that case, of a part, being the possession of the whole, and in that case, they would find for the plaintiffs.\u201d The correctness of the charge of the Judge on this point is supported by the case of Fitzrandolph v. Norman, N. C. Term Rep. 131. In that case, the Judges who decided'it, gave elaborate opinions, and went so thoroughly into the subject, that we now deem it unnecessary to say or do more than refer to the reasons there advanced, as sufficient in our opinion, to shew that the act of 1791 (1 Rev. St. ch. 65, sec. 2) making certain possessions of land valid against the ,State, does not affect the common law principle of presuming a grant from the State, from great length of possession. In our opinion, the above charge of the Judge was correct; and the judgment must be affirmed.\nPer Curiam. . Judgment affirmed. \u2022",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Daniel, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hoke for the defendant.",
      "D. F. Caldwell for the lessors of the plaintiff."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DEN ON DEM. OF SARAH HARRIS et al. v. JAMES J. MAXWELL.\nJune 1839\nThe act of 1791 (1 Rev. Stat. ch. 65, sec. 2,) making certain possessions of land valid against the State, does not affect the common law-principle of presuming a grant from great length of possession.. And if a person and those under whom he claims, have been in possession for thirty-five years of a tract of land, the lines and boundaries have been known and visible, and he and they under whom he holds, claimed up to those lines and boundaries, a grant for the land, up to those boundaries, may he presumed to have issued \u2014 although the actual possession or enclosure of the occupants might not have extended to the lines \u2014 the possession, in that case, of a part, being the possession of the whole.\nThe case of Fiizrandolph v. Norman, N. C. Term Rep. 131, approved.\nThis was an action of ejectment, tried at Mecklenburg, on the last circuit, before his honor Judge Nash.\nThe lessors of the plaintiff, in making out their title to the land in controversy, introduced a deed executed by George Graham, Sheriff of Mecklenburg County, to James Harris, in October, 1795, in which were contained the following words as part of the description of the land conveyed: \u201c the various courses being fully ascertained by said Harris\u2019 plat of his deeded lands and the surplus land found to contain 268 acres.\u201d They then offered in evidence a survey made by Samuel Black, (a deceased surveyor) in April, 1795, as the one referred to in the Sheriff\u2019s deed. The reception of this plat was objected to by the defendant\u2019s counsel, but was admitted by the Court, submitting its identity as a matter of fact to the jury. The plaintiff\u2019s lessors then proved that the plat covered the land in dispute, and further that they and those under whom they claimed had been in the peaceable and undisturbed possession of the land within the boundaries as set forth in the plat referred to, for upwards of fifty-five years, and that since 1795 the said James Harris and those claiming under him had used the land designated by the said plat as one tract, by actual cultivation on different parts, and by other acts of ownership, and that they had had a part of the -lands within the disputed lines in actual cultivation for about thirteen years before the bringing of this action.\nMnps and wiSS\u2019 are refen-ed conveyance^ mixed to the ^\u201c4scal\u2122e\" or not, be-them whether su?vcyai? \u00b0L rrad'in dence when not reo-is-tered with thejieed.\nThe defendant claimed under a grant to him of recent date the land in'dispute, and,contended that the land covered ,. L' , . . . , ^ , ^ ^ by Ins grant was, at the time it issued, vacant, and subject to cntry.\nI-Iis Honor, after giving some instructions to the jury, which it is unnecessary to mention, charged them \u201c that if they were satisfied that the plaintiffs and those under whom they claimed had been thirty-five years in possession, before the action brought, of the land circumscribed by the plat, referred to in the Sheriff\u2019s deed to James Harris, and that during that time the lines and boundaries of .said land were known and visible, and the plaintiffs and those under whom they held, claimed up to them; they were at liberty to presume a grant for the land to have issued up to those boundaries \u2014 although the actual possession or enclosure of the occupants might not have extended to the lines \u2014 the possession, in that case, of a part, being the possession of the whole \u2014 and that, in that case, they would find for the plaintiffs.\u201d There was a verdict and judgment for the lessors of the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.\nHoke for the defendant.\nD. F. Caldwell for the lessors of the plaintiff."
  },
  "file_name": "0241-01",
  "first_page_order": 371,
  "last_page_order": 373
}