Tbis ease was bere 160 N. C., 263. Tbe plaintiffs seek to recover a tract of 1,000 acres swamp land, under mesne conveyances from a grant to Jobn Oow-per in 1788, and damages for trespass tbereon. Tbe question of title by adverse possession does not arise. Tbe defendant admits tbat it bas cut timber on tbe land in controversy as alleged in tbe complaint, but denies tbat sucb cutting was wrongful or unlawful.
Tbe defendant asked tbe court to submit an issue as to tbe true location. Tbis contention binges upon these words, “then running up tbe river to the head thereofTbe plaintiffs contend that tbe “bead of tbe river” is at a certain point, and tbat if their contention is correct tbe tract will contain 1,026 acres, and tbe outline of its boundaries will coincide almost precisely with tbe plat and description in tbe survey óf tbe Cowper patent 125 years ago, in 1788. But that if tbe “bead of tbe river” is where tbe defendant contends, tbe survey shows tbat there would be only 740 acres in tbe original grant, and tbat tbe outlines of tbe boundary will not correspond with said grant to Oowper. There was much evidence on tbis point, and tbe jury found in accordance with tbe contention of tbe plaintiffs. We find no merit in tbe exceptions on tbis point, and we do not think it is necessary to consider in detail tbe other exceptions, most of which are in fact determined by .the decision of tbis case, 160 N. C., 263.
Tbe real controversy now before us turns upon tbis point, “Were tbe lands of John, Lord Carteret, Earl of G-ranville, subject to entry and grant in July, 1788 ? Tbe plaintiffs claim *80under sucb grant and a complete chain of mesne conveyances to themselves. The defendant claims under a conveyance from the State Board of Education, 24 October, 1904, to George W. Roper, for 38,000 acres, including the locus in quo in consideration of $700. The plaintiffs contend that this is less than 2 cents per acre, and that the conveyance is therefore void, because Revisal, 4009,' provides that the “State Board of Education . . . shall not sell swamp lands at a price less than 12% cents per .acre,” and contend that at most this could be nothing more than a quitclaim or release of any interest the State board might have in said tract. We need not, however, discuss this point, if the grant to' John Cowper in 1788 covered land which was then subject to entry and grant.
The real controversy, therefore, turns upon the proposition whether the lands of Earl Granville were confiscated, which’ confiscation was rendered invalid by- article 6 of the Treaty of Peace with Great Britain in 1783, or became the property of the State as a consequence of Indej>endence.
On 30 June, 1665, Charles II. granted to the eight Lords Proprietors all the lands from the present .Virginia State line to the 31 degree north latitude. On September, 1744, George II. set apart,to John, Lord Carteret, one degree of latitude southward from the Virginia line, the king having bought out the other seven Lords Proprietors. The southern line- of Lord Granville’s territory may still be traced in the southern boundary-of the counties of Chatham (until the formation of Lee), Randolph, Davidson, Rowan, and Iredell. The Confiscation Act, ch. 17, Laws 1777 (2d Session), 24 State Records, 123, and Laws 1779, ch. 2; 24 State Records, 263, which was passed during the Revolution and which was not enforced, because in violation of the treaty, named the parties whose lands were confiscated, and among these .the name of Lord Carteret does not appear. The Entry Act, ch. 1, Laws 1777 (2d Session), 24 State Records, 43, expressly withheld those confiscated lands from entry and grant, and the confiscation indeed was never enforced. The act' authorized the entry and grant of all lands “which have not been granted by the crown of Great Britain, or *81tbe Lords Proprietors of Carolina, or any of them, in fee before the first day of July, 1776, or which have accrued or shall accrue to this State by treaty or conquest.”
It is clear from the above language that the lands which were still held by' Lord Granville on 1 July, 1776, “had not been granted by him or any of the Lords Proprietors in fee, nor by the crown,” and therefore those lands were subject to entry and grant. This was the cotemporaneous construction put .by the Legislature on section, 25 of the Bill of Rights, prefatory to the Constitution, adopted at Halifax in 1776. That section vested the property of the soil within thé limits of the State, as there laid down, in the “collective body of the people,” excepting only “The titles or possessions of individuals holding or claiming under the laws heretofore in force or grants heretofore made by King George III. or his predecessors, or the late Lords Proprietors or any of them.” This is an explicit recognition that whatever titles George III. or any of the Lords Proprietors retained in themselves, ungranted at that date, had passed to the sovereign people of this State and by the subsequent act of 1777, above referred to, all such lands having become the property of the State, became the subject of entry and grant.
The point was directly presented to this Court in Taylor v, Shuford, 11 N. 0., 116, and the Court held: “The sovereign pcjwer cannot be estopped. Where the kin'g in 1768 granted lands to A. which he had previously granted to Lord Granville, the grant to A. was void; and as the State succeeded upon the Revolution to Lord Granville’s right to the land, a grant made by the State since shall be preferred to the royal grant to A.” It is true that when the seven Lords Proprietors' conveyed their interest to the Icing, Lord Granville, while retaining his one-eighth interest in the land, released his right to participate thenceforward in the government. But that did not change the fact that he held the land in the capacity of a quasi-sovereign, as Lord Proprietor under the Patent of 1665, and as a coowner with the king, though partition was made in 1744, and not as an individual. He continued to make grants till 1776.
The contention that the Earl of Granville did not hold the land in this gwasi-sovereign capacity, but that he was a mere in*82dividual grantee, and therefore that bis rights were protected from confiscation by the Treaty of Peace of 1783, was presented by an action brought in the United States Court for North Carolina in 1802 in the case of Coventry v. State. The contention of the heirs of Earl of Granville was not sustained, and they did not- appeal,, though they were represented by able counsel. The papers are still on file at Raleigh. Some years later Judge Gaston and Judge Duncan Cameron were employed to have the cause revived, but upon full consideration this was not done. We must presume that those eminent lawyers were satisfied that the contention of their clients could not be maintained. Indeed, though- Granville had released to the king his right to share in the government, there was nothing to show that he changed in any wise the guasi-sovereign capacity in which he had held the lands. The title of the king as the grantee of seven Lords Proprietors was on exactly the same footing as the title of the one Lord Proprietor who retained his lands. All lands ungranted by the king or Lords Proprietors to individuals on 1 July, 1776, became the property of the sovereign State of North Carolina, without distinction.
This matter has been so long settled that indeed it now possesses only'an antiquarian interest. If it were possible to change it, it would affect- the titles in at least half the counties óf the State, except for the protection afforded by the statute of limitations.
We, however, are fully of the opinion that the title of the Earl of Granville passed, like the title of the king, by tlqe right of conquest, and that the new State Government became vested of the ungranted lands of the earl in this part of its territory in exactly the same'plight and condition that it became vested with the ungranted lands in the rest of the State, i. e., by conquest of the sovereign power.
It is scarcely necessary to discuss more fully this proposition. The other exceptions require no debate. The jury found that the boundaries of the land were as contended for by the plain-' tiffs, assessed the damages at $637.50 and held that the damages were not barred by the statute of limitations.
No error.