delivered theopinion of the court, tins t'ulaily'°1<1'deed is void, in as much as the common law does not permit a right of entry to be transferred or sold, and for the reason assigned in Co. Lit. 314, “ to avoid main- tenance, suppression of right, and stirring up suits; and therefore nothing in action, entry, or re-entry can be gran- ted over; for so under colour thereof pretended titles might bo granted to great men, whereby i ight might be trodden down and the weak oppressed, which the common law for- biddetb; as men to grant before they be in possession.’* This question has been so often decided- in this state, that the court thought it had long since been at rest and would and would *115«ever be revived. — Lei judgment be entered for the «-..a
Den on demise of Gibson v. Shearer, 5 N.C. 114, 1 Mur. 114 (1806)
June 1806
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
5 N.C. 114, 1 Mur. 114
Den on Demise of Gibson vs. Shearer
From Salisbury
Deed foe lands in the actual adversed verse possession of person, is
tj'j¡e jessor 0f plaintiff claimed the land in question 1 under the trustees of the University of North Carolina | he obtained a deed for tire land when Shearer the defendant was *n actual possession, claiming the land as his own. The question in the case was, whether this deed was valid ?