Note.—Vide 2 L. R. 853. 1 Ba. Ab. 157. 3 Lev. 312. 1 Re. 136. The lease, assignment, &zc. is deemed void even between the parties, there being nothing that could by law be conveyed in the last, if there is no person seized no use can arise, and consequently a bargain and sale which operates by raising an use out of the estate the bargainee is seized of, cannot be good for want of the use where the bargainer is not seized and passes nothing ; and so the interest the University had by conveyance from the state, remains still in them, notwithstanding their deed to Blount s as to the estoppel, that can only take place between parties and privies, and here the defend-mi. is arekker. Co. Lilt. 3 72.
University v. Harniblea, 3 N.C. 39, 2 Hayw. 39 (1798)
March 1798
·
North Carolina Superior Court
3 N.C. 39, 2 Hayw. 39
The University vs. Harniblea.
Tj>JECTMENT for the same premises as demanded in the action, Blount vs. the same defendant ante, and the sauna evidence as in that case, upon which the doubt was, whether as the University being out of possession, conveyed to Blount by deed of bargain and sale, they could recover in the face of that deed, or whether thty were not estoped thereby to say they yet had title j and verdict \vas taken for the lessors of the plaintiff, subject to that doubt to be decided by the court.
et adjournatvr.