Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

PEARSE v. TEMPLETON

Superior Court of North Carolina New Bern.
Jan 1, 1806
Judgment
Subsequent
References
CaseIQ
Case Information
CITATION CODES
citation codes
Attorney(S)

Harris, for the defendant, objected that Templeton was no party to that ejectment, and that it ought not to be read against him. E contra, it was argued that it ought to be read as prima facie evidence of title in the defendant in that action, leaving it to (380) Templeton to show, if he could, that the verdict was by Covin, or that the title was not in Joseph Pearse; and the counsel cited 1 Wn. 306 to 308.

JUDGES

HALL, J.

ACTS

No Acts

See more information ... Less ...
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

A record of recovery in ejectment is not evidence, in an action by the purchaser against the vendor on a warranty, of the superior title of the lessor of the plaintiff.

HALL, J.

The record ought to be read, but can prove no more than that the plaintiff did not recover. It will not be of itself proof that Joseph Pearse had title.

The record was read, and HALL, J., directed the jury that the plaintiff should have proved Joseph Pearse's title, and that he had not done so, for the record was not evidence of that; and the plaintiff, hearing the opinion of the Court, suffered

A nonsuit.

NOTE. — See Wright v. Walker, ante, 16, and the cases there referred to in the note.

Cited: Shober v. Robinson, 6 N.C. 37.

© 2026 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

x

Alert

Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.
Sign Up Login
x