{
  "id": 11275233,
  "name": "Den on demise of Murry v. Sermon",
  "name_abbreviation": "Den on demise of Murry v. Sermon",
  "decision_date": "1820-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "56",
  "last_page": "58",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Hawks 56"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 N.C. 56"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "2 Mo. 106",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mo.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 John. Rep. 322",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "323"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 298,
    "char_count": 3975,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.311,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.155054564894517e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7691178134323662
    },
    "sha256": "a4e99195228cb6698fe7c4a103cf74185641c2dbe47f3104b95f12e3557df260",
    "simhash": "1:4b4383f23a0874e1",
    "word_count": 722
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:59:01.842322+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Den on demise of Murry v. Sermon."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ham., Judge,\ndelivered his own opinion, and \u00bfhat of the Court :\nI think that I was incorrect in my charge to the Jury below in this, that I directed them to find for ilie Defendant, whether the lake had receded or not\\ for, in either case, it remained his bound;; ry. Now, if the recession of the lake was sudden and sensible/ the land which it had covered, anti which, by its dereliction, became dry, would not, and ought not, to be included in the Defendant\u2019s grant. But., if the waters receded gradually and insensibly, the charge would be right, and the lake ought to be considered one of the Defendant\u2019s boundaries. It is, therefore, necessary that the fact be found, whether the waters of the lake receded imperceptibly or not from the land in dispute,$ because, on that question the rights of the parties depend. And to do that, the rule for a new trial must be made absolute.\n2 Bl. Com. 261. Harg. Law Tr. 5. Dyer 376. Vattell L. N. 193.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ham., Judge,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The ease was argued by Gaston, for the Plaintiff,",
      "Jl. Henderson, for the Defendant,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Den on demise of Murry v. Sermon.\nFrom Hyde.\nif a navigable late recede gradually and insensibly, tlie derelict' land belongs to the riparious proprietor: but if tlie rc\u00bfcssion be sudden and sensible, such land belongs to the State, and, it seems, is the subject of entry under the act of 177?, c. 1.\nThe Defendant claimed title to the land in dispute under a patent bearing date in the year 1761, in which the boundaries were described as follows : \u201c Beginning at a poplar \u201c on the sontli side of Mailamuskeet Lake; thence running \u201c west, with the lake, 86 poles to a corner ; thence differ-e\u2018 ent courses and distances to a corner on the lake again ; \u201c and thence, with the lake, to tlie beginning.\u201d The lessor of the Plaintiff had obtained a grant of late date, covering lands, as he alleged, between the Defendant\u2019s lines and the lake, which had become dry by the recession of the lake since the patent to the Defendant was issued, as stated by the .\u25a0 Plaintiff. Both sides gave evidence of what had been actually run for the lines of the Defendant\u2019s land ; and it was proved that the lake was a navigable water.\nThe cause was tried at November term, 1818, before Hall, J. while he was on the circuit bench ; and he directed the Jury, that whether the lake had in fact receded or not, it must still be considered a line of the Defendant\u2019s grant. A verdict was accordingly found for the Defendant; and, upon a rule for a new trial, he ordered the case to be transmitted to the late. Supreme Court for an opinion, whether he had misdirected the Jury or not.\nThe ease was argued by Gaston, for the Plaintiff,\nat January term, 1820, before the appointment of the Reporter, who did not hear his argument.\nJl. Henderson, for the Defendant,\nnow contended that the. charge of the Court below was. right. The case does not state that the recession of the lake wsn sudden, which would be necessary to enable the Plaintiff to recover. In the case of such recession only, does the derelict land belong to the, sovereign. \u2014 Harpy L. T. SO, Vs jure Maris; S Mass. Hep. 363. Rut if the water of the Sea, or of a navigable river, recode gradually and by small and almost imperceptible, degrees, the increase of the land belongs to the adjacent riparious proprietors. \u2014 -2 iloil. Mr. 170. Dyer 326. 5 Bac. Mr. 404, title, Prerogative, 2 Bl. Coin. 261, 262. 2 John. Rep. 322, 323. Jjarg. law Tr. 21. The case of the Homey-General v. Glr Ed. Turner, 2 Mo. 106, was decided upon the peculiar wording of the grant, and not on the question, whether the- king or the adjacent proprietor owned land formed by the gradual recession of the sea. But, at all events, the Plaintiff has no title to the land in dispute. It is not the subject of entry under our law. The act of 177?', c\u201e 1, prescribes that those lands only \u201c which had not been granted by the Crown, \u201c or by the lords proprietors, or which have accrued, or \u201c shall accrue, to this State by treaty or conquest,\u201d may be entered: and these lands were acquired neither by treaty nor conquest."
  },
  "file_name": "0056-01",
  "first_page_order": 62,
  "last_page_order": 64
}