doubted much if there was not a difference between the cases, and directed a verdict for the plaintiff: bat as to the £e!d occupied by the defendant at the time of the conveyance to the plaintiff, he reserved the same for further consider»
Dennis v. Farr, 3 N.C. 245, 2 Hayw. 245 (1803)
May 1803
·
North Carolina Superior Court
3 N.C. 245, 2 Hayw. 245
Dennis vs. Farr.
'EJECTMENT. The plaintiffproved tide to the whole tract -h"* to have beer, ia Wilson and wife, from whom he purchased 5 but a; to part, the defendant had been in possession, aso was so> at the time of the plaintiff’s conveyance to him. He claimed lO certain lines which he supposed included part of the land the plaintiff daisied. These lines, however, it was proved on this trial, really included other lauds out of the plaintiff's hounds 5 Sind then he was in possession, ciainv.nrj to certain bounds.
The counsel for the plaintiff' cited the case of Symoud.% and True Blood, and urged that here the defendant had defended for the whole-* — when, as to part defended for, there had been possession ia the plaintiff 3 and if in such case the plaintiff was in possession of all as regarded the act of limitations, he was also in possession as to the objection of selling a right of entry.