Opinion · Nclaw North Carolina
SHEPPARD v. SHEPPARD, 4 N.C. 545 (1817)
WILLIAM SHEPPARD'S HEIRS v. STEPHANUS SHEPPARD. — TERM, 108., 4 N.C. 545 (N.C. 1817)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Nclaw North Carolina
- Jurisdiction
- Nclaw
- Date
- 1817-01-01
- Topic
- general
SHEPPARD v. SHEPPARD, 4 N.C. 545 (1817) WILLIAM SHEPPARD'S HEIRS v. STEPHANUS SHEPPARD. — TERM, 108.Supreme Court of North Carolina (January Term, 1817.) A color of title, without seven years continued possession, will not entitle the plaintiff in ejectment to recover, even against an intruder. EJECTMENT to recover the possession of the premises of which defendant was in possession. The jury, by direction of the court, found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon the following facts: That the premises were patented by Barfield, 21 April, 1764; that Benjamin Sheppard, in May, 1792, conveyed the same to the ancestor of the lessor of the plaintiff, who entered thereupon and died within seven years; that after his death, the lessors (the children of the deceased), being infants, were removed by Benjamin Sheppard; the personal property was also removed, and soon thereafter Gardner Sheppard, the brother to the deceased, entered upon the premises then occupied.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed SHEPPARD v. SHEPPARD, 4 N.C. 545 (1817). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
SHEPPARDv. SHEPPARD,4 N.C. 545(1817)
WILLIAM SHEPPARD'S HEIRS v. STEPHANUS SHEPPARD. — TERM, 108.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
A color of title, without seven years continued possession, will not entitle the plaintiff in ejectment to recover, even against an intruder.
EJECTMENT to recover the possession of the premises of which defendant was in possession. The jury, by direction of the court, found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon the following facts: That the premises were patented by Barfield, 21 April, 1764; that Benjamin Sheppard, in May, 1792, conveyed the same to the ancestor of the lessor of the plaintiff, who entered thereupon and died within seven years; that after his death, the lessors (the children of the deceased), being infants, were removed by Benjamin Sheppard; the personal property was also removed, and soon thereafter Gardner Sheppard, the brother to the deceased, entered upon the premises then occupied. After his removal, which was about ten years ago, the present defendant, another brother, also entered, and has continued in possession. No other possession is proven by the plaintiff, or any other title given in evidence, when the court directed the question to be transmitted to the Supreme Court.
DANIEL, J.
The ancestors of the lessors of the plaintiffs did not derive any title from the patentee, or from any person claiming under him. They claim by virtue of a deed made and executed to their ancestor by a certain B. Sheppard, dated in May, 1792. It is admitted by the case that neither their ancestor, in his lifetime, nor themselves since his death, have had a seven years continued possession of the premises in question; and we are therefore of opinion that the deed of 1792, accompanied with a possession short of seven years, did not ripen into such a title as authorizes the present lessors of the plaintiffs to recover in this action.
Judgment for defendant.
NOTE. — SeeJones v. Ridley, ante, 280, and the note toStrudwickv. Shaw,1 N.C. 34, and to the same case in2 N.C. 5.Cited: Duncan v. Duncan,25 N.C. 318;Taylor v. Gooch,48 N.C. 468;Gudger v. Hensley,82 N.C. 483.Page 397
(547)