{
  "id": 8681821,
  "name": "Doe on the Demise of JOHN NEWLIN vs. MATTHEW OSBORNE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Doe on the Demise of Newlin v. Osborne",
  "decision_date": "1855-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "163",
  "last_page": "165",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Jones 163"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "47 N.C. 163"
    }
  ],
  "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": 248,
    "char_count": 4365,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.435,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8844080863002933e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7281144576382639
    },
    "sha256": "311338e5c9656e27d90b5aa51670b4b4227ceb923ab824e29d847fde850aa6cd",
    "simhash": "1:8964842765700c4b",
    "word_count": 779
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:13:38.493839+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Doe on the Demise of JOHN NEWLIN vs. MATTHEW OSBORNE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeaesoN, J.\nIn ejectment, the plaintiff asks the court to turn the defendant out, and put him in possession of the land sued for; hence the rule, \u201c the plaintiff must recover upon the strength of his own title and not upon the weakness of that of the defendant.\u201d\nTwo exceptions are made. 1st. Where the \u00a1ilaintiff\u2019s lessor is a purchaser at sheriff\u2019s sale, and the defendant is the defendant in the execution. \u2018\n2d. \u201c Whez*e both parties claim under the same person, neither shall deny the title of the person under whom both claim.\u201d This exception is not based on the idea of an estoppel, but is a rule of practice, which has become a rule of law, adopted by the courts for the purpose of aiding the administration of justice, by dispensing with the necessity of requiring the plaintiff to prove the original grant and mesne conveyances (which in many cases it was out of his power to do) upon proof that the defendant claimed under the same person. An exception is made to this exception, when the defendant can show that the true title was in a third person, paramount to the title of the person under whom the plaintiff and defendant both claim ; and that the defendant has acquired this paramount title from such third person, or can connect himself with such third person, as by showing that he held possession for him, or under him. Love v. Gates, 4 Dev. and Bat. Rep. 363; Copeland v. Sauls, 1 Jones\u2019 Rep. 70.\nIn our case, both parties make title under Davis, and there is no reason why it should not fall under the second exception : so, neither party is at liberty to deny that Davis was the owner of the land.\nTaking that to be a \u201c fixed fact,\u201d the question is, has the plaintiff acquired the title of Davis? The sheriff\u2019s deed to him was prima faoie evidence of the fact.\nThe defendant offered to prove that the title of Davis was notin the plaintiff, but in one Jeremiah Osborne, by showing that in 1845, Davis made a deed for this land to the defendant, and afterwards that the defendant made a deed to Murchison as trustee, who sold the land and conveyed it to Jeremiah Osborne, for a full and valuable consideration, without notice of the claim of Newlin, whereby Jeremiah had, before the sheriff\u2019s deed to Newlin, acquired a good and indefeasible title, although the deed from Davis to the defendant was without consideration and void in regard to Newlin, who was a creditor at the date of the deed. Ilis Honor rejected this evidence, and for this the defendant excepts. There is error.\nThe defendant did not, by offering this evidence, deny the title of Davis, under whom both parties claim. On the contrary, he assumed that to be the fact, and offered to show that the title had passed from Davis to Jeremiah Osborne, and not to the lessor of the plaintiff. There is no rule of law or of practice that forbids this.\nThe plaintiff had the benefit of the rule, that where both parties claim under the same person, neither shall deny his title, and was relieved from the necessity of showing the grant and mesne conveyances; this was as much as he could ask for, and we can see no ground, whatever, upon which he could insist that the defendant ought not to be allowed to show, that, prior to liis purchase at sheriff\u2019s sale, or the lien of his execu-cution, the title of Davis had become vested in Jeremiah Osborne : so that the plaintiff\u2019s lessor acquired nothing by his purchase at sheriff\u2019s sale, and having no title, of course, had no right to ask the court to turn the defendant, or any one else, out of possession, and put him in. Venire de novo.\nPee CueiaM. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeaesoN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Graham, for plaintiff.",
      "Norwood, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Doe on the Demise of JOHN NEWLIN vs. MATTHEW OSBORNE.\nThe rule adopted in our Courts, in the action of ejectment, that where both plaintiff and defendant claim under the title of a prior grantee, neither shall be allowed to dispute the title of such prior grantee, does not forbid the defendant from showing, that before the plaintiff had got his conveyance, (which was a sheriff\u2019s deed) such prior grantee had convoyed to him, though without consideration, and that he had conveyed to a third person for a full and valuable consideration, who had no notice of the rights of the plaintiff.\nThis was an action of ejectment, tried before bis Honor Judge Dice, at tlie Spring Term, 1855, of Alamance Superior Court.\nGraham, for plaintiff.\nNorwood, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0163-01",
  "first_page_order": 171,
  "last_page_order": 173
}