
    SAWYERS LESSEE vs. SHANNON AND BOLING.
    A defendant to avail himself of the statue of limitations, need not shew a connected chain of conveyances from the grant. If land be sold under execution, none but those interested in it, can take exception to the validity of the judgment on which the execution issued.
    
      Ejectment; not guilty, and issue.
    
    The defendants claimed under the oldest grant, and relied on the statue of limitations. It was proved on the part of the defendant, that Thomas Mollay purchased at sheriff's sale, and took a sheriff's deed; he sold to Shannon, and gave his bond to convey. Shannon took possession early in the spring of 1800, and made a lettuce and cabbage patch, about twenty poles within the tract of the plaintiff; cleared a small quantity adjoining, perhaps a quarter of an acre, which in the following fall he added to, and continued to add to the clearing. On the 22d of August, 1809, Molloy conveyed to Shannon, and on the 15th of August, 1807. The declaration in ejectment is endorsed as having issued, and came to the hands of the marshal, on the 26th of August, 1807. The defendants shewed a copy of a grant to John Eaton; a judgment on a sci. fa. against the heirs Pinkham Eaton, naming four persons, among whom was John Eaton. The land was sold, and a sheriff's deed made to Molloy as above.
    For the plaintiff, the following grounds were taken:
    1st. The defendant must shew a regular and connected chain of legal title from the grantee; otherwise the statute cannot apply.
    2d. A connected title has not been shewn. The judgment is against four of the Eaton’s stating them heirs of Pinkham Eaton, deceased, the grant, part of which was sold by the sheriff, is to John Eaton, administrator of Pinkham Eaton, deceased. The judgment was obtained upon two nihils, which is not legal in a case where heirs are to be affected. There should have been a scire feci returned. The judgment is invalid, but if good, the sheriff had no right to sell the land of John Eaton, for the grant does not state that John Eaton took as heir, and we cannot presume it; the sheriff had no more right to sell the land of John Eaton under this judgment, than of any individual in society—the sale was therefore void, and no right vested under it in Molloy; he therefore had not any to convey to Shannon. The statute was intended to protect possessors, under a regular chain of legal title, against ah older regular title. It could not give a title, unless there was one before, and where there is a defective title, it is as none.
   Per Curiam,

to the jury. We are inclined to think the statute applies; some doubt however exists on two grounds—whether it be necessary for the defendant to shew a good legal title by valid conveyances from the grant. The point however, upon which we doubt at present, is, that the sheriff in his return on the execution, does not state the particular tract out of which he sold; but at present the jury may consider the statute of limitations as applying to the case, as it is believed the plaintiff was not competent to make objections, on account of errors in the judgment.

The jury after some time found a verdict for the plaintiff, and upon a rule for a new trial, it was argued by Overton and Haywood for the defendants upon the following grounds:

1st. The grant to John Eaton is good, and passes the estate to him, as heir of Pinkham Eaton, deceased.

2d. If the judgment against Eaton’s heirs is erroneous, the plaintiff being a stranger, not party nor privy in blood nor estate, cannot take advantage of it.

3d. If the judgment is erroneous, the sale is good.

4th. But it is not even erroneous.

5th. The statute of limitations protects irregular conveyances, and even where there is no regular chain of conveyances, provided the possessor claims under a deed bona fide.

As to the first point, it was said, that mistakes in grants could not destroy their validity; the intention of the party granting, must be collected as in construing other instruments. The grant recites the number of the warrant and entry, both of which are in the name of Pinkham Eaton, and the grant, though it states John Eaton administrator, manifestly designed that he should take as heir; in fact, he was obliged to take in that capacity, as the law would not allow of his taking in any other.

On the second ground, the judgment having been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; must stand until reversed by parties or privies.

As to the third point, we lay it down as certain, that this land having been granted in right of representation of the deceased, was liable to sale for his debts. The twenty-third section of the court law, 1794, c. 1, rendered lands, tenements and hereditaments liable to execution. Upon a similar clause in Ird. Rev. November, 1777, c. 2, it was determined by M'Nairy, judge, previous to the act of 1793, c. 5, s. 7, that an entry could be sold under execution. The act giving bounty lands to the officers and soldiers, in case of the death of the officer or soldier, gives it expressly to the heirs, 1782, c. 3, s. 6.

It is said Pinkham Eaton died in the year 1781, and that this land vests in the heir by purchase, and is not liable to the debts of the deceased. This we by no means admit; but supposing it did, if the heir or heirs were satisfied that it should be liable, it does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff, who is a stranger, to say that it shall not. The sale is good, though the judgment may be erroneous or irregular.

But it were not even necessary to name the persons who are heirs. They might have been named as heirs generally. A sci. fa. is not subject to the same strictness as an original suit.

4th. But this judgment is not erroneous. John Eaton, to whom the grant issued, is one of the persons named as heir, and though others might have been joined, who had no interest in the land, the judgment is good against John Eaton. He could only take advantage of more persons being joined than ought to have been, by plea in abatement,—Neither of the other defendants can reverse the judgment as to this land, for two reasons—want of interest, 2 Bac. Ab. tit. Error B. ib. tit. Execution P. and having had a day in court. Anciently irregularities in executions were classed under the title error; but of late years, such errors are rectified on motion. But in no case where a judgment shall have been reversed, shall the party be restored property sold on a fi. fa. which will be perceived by recurrence to the authorities last mentioned, and the cases referred to in Haywood’s Reports, in the third division of this argument, except indeed it be in a case where the party obtaining the judgment, purchases under the execution. Lands are sold here by fi. fa. and the same principles are attributable to proceedings under it respecting land, that would be respecting personal property. An objection has been taken to the return of the sheriff, in not describing the land sold; to this it is answered, that the sale would have been good, if the execution had never been returned. A fortiori, where the return is merely informal, and can do no injury.

Though we have been thus minute in removing objections, to supposed errors in obtaining the judgment and issuing the grant, it was not thought absolutely necessary. On plain and decisive answer to the plaintiff is at hand for all these objections. You are a stranger to them, and as you cannot be injured by these transactions of others, res inter alias acta non nocet, so you shall not derive any benefit from them agreeably to a maxim of the civil law alii. per alium non acquiritur exceptio.

A judgment of a competent tribunal, and all the proceedings under it, stand good, and must be taken as true, until reversed. Whether John Eaton be heir or not, is immaterial with you; the title would be in some person, with whom you would have to contend. The state have said in the grant, that he takes as heir, and as such the judgment is against him, and this must he taken as true, whenever it comes collaterally before the court. Eaton makes no complaint that these lands have been sold for his brother's debts, the plaintiff has no right to complain.

5th. Whether the judgment or conveyances be regular or not, the statute of limitations covers the defendants case.

The act of 1715, confirms claims under executors, administrators, heirs and wives. Now it is clear, that these persons had no more right to sell lands, than one person would have to sell the land of another; yet validity is expressly given to them by the act, when attended by the seven years possession. For many years in North-Carolina, the bench and bar were divided in their construction of the act of limitations. Some thought, and a very respectable portion of the bench and bar, were of that opinion, that possession alone for seven years, without any title, or color of title, would give a right, and bar others; the question was at length settled by the court of conference, that there should be a color of title to enable a person to hold by seven years possession. But no person ever supposed or contended, that a perfect legality of connected title was required. The subject respecting seven years possession, was contested here in the same manner it was in North-Carolina, and the difference of opinion was the reason of the passage of the act of 1797, c. 43, s. 4. It was the only design of the act, to make colour of title necessary. The section transposed into plain language will read thus—“Where any person shall have had possession of land for seven years, such possession being in consequence of a grant, or deed founded on a grant, without claim by suit in law; that then all persons shall be barred. This act is professedly an explanation of the act of 1715; its object was not to introduce any new provision, it was only to remove a doubt, whether a naked possession for seven years would give a right or not; to carry the act any further, would be going beyond its express words, which was to remove the doubt then existing. Before the passage of the act of 1797, no person ever doubted, that possession would require any thing more than a colour of title, bona fide; as a deed from some person honestly made, the land having been granted by the state.

The expression in the act of 1797, which has created the doubt, is “ founded on a grant,” from which it is implied, according to the argument on the other side, that there must be a regular connection with the grant; if one link is broken, it cannot be said to be “founded on a grant.” The act of 1715, speaks of titles derived under sales from executors, &c. In this case we know there is not any regular legal chain of title, and it surely was not the intention of the act of 1797, to repeal the act of 1715, as to irregular and imperfect conveyances by executors and others. The principles contended for on the other side, would repeal the most beneficial part of the act of 1715, instead of explaining it, as the legislature profess to do. The expressions seem to be of the same import, as those in the act of 1797; we ought not therefore to extend their meaning beyond the object the legislature had in view. The intention of the legislature manifestly was, that no seven years possession should be available unless the possessor had a deed, and that the land so possessed, should be granted; or in other words, that the possession should have its foundation or derivation in a grant from the state. The possession by deed must be bottomed or founded on a grant, to make it available.

Giving the act of 1797 this construction, which it will bear, avoids the absurdity of enacting a new law, which the legislature from their own unequivocal language, never designed. To give it any other construction, would nearly annihilate the highly beneficial provisions of the statute, which was to cure defects in titles, by protecting after certain lapse of time, the honest improver and cultivator of the earth.

There is no doubt but that the defendant Shannon, and Molloy, under whom he claims, had been in possession upwards of seven years. From April, 1800, until the 22d of August following, when Shannon got his deed, it was the possession of Molloy, Shannon having been placed on the land by him.

The suing out of the declaration in this case, ought to be considered on the 26th of August, 1807, when it came to the hands of the marshal; and this would be steering clear of the objection, that Shannon had no deed to cover his seven years possession. Computing from this day he had a deed the whole time, and four days to spare. There is no telling that this declaration issued at the time it is marked on the back; the attorney might, have anti-dated, to prevent the running of the statute, and if he had written it, he might not have given it to the marshal. It was the same thing as if it had not been written at all. Unless then, it could be proved that it had been issued before, we must take the time of its coming to the hands of the marshal, as the true time.

It is not however wished to be understood, that we have no other defence than the statute of limitations. We have an older entry than their grant, which according to the practice of the state, we could rely on. The entry was read and compared with the plat. Our entry has been surveyed agreebly to its call. November, 1777, c. 1, s. 5,10. 1779, c. 6. s. 6. 1783, c. 2 s. 19. 1786, c. 20, s. 1.

The beginning of the entry is special, and in running down towards Harpeth, the surveyor was obliged to stop at Moores tract, which was an older one. The land being taken upon the west, the surveyor could run it no other way than he did. A surveyor in surveying, acts independent of the claimant, and if he did not construe the entry in the equitable manner now contended for, is that to operate to the injury of Eaton, or those claiming under him? Much was said in the case of Polk’s lessee vs. Robertson and Cockrel, and many cases cited from Haywood’s Reports to shew that the mistake of a surveyor shall not prejudice a grantee. Why should the surveyors mistaken construction of an entry prejudice the enterer or claimant? It would be highly unjust, that the act of the surveyor, should operate to the prejudice of the enterer, unless in cases where he surveyed contrary to the plain words of an entry. Not a meaning by what is called an equitable construction; as where the inclusion of a particular object is called for, that you must put it in the center, or where an entry calls to lie on a water course, it must be on both sides, or equally on both sides. In the first case as common men and surveyors have and will always understand such entries, there would be a compliance with it, if the object should be included, in any part of the survey; and in the second if the land surveyed should lie on the creek, though on one side and bounded by it.

As the oldest entry waste be first surveyed, having by all our acts a preference in being surveyed and granted, precise certainty, was not necessary in an entry, and none of the statutes require it. Agreeably to our law and its practice, and entry may be more or less certain. We have understood it to be the design of the first, to confine the surveyor, in making the survey to precise limits, the enterer choosing a particular spot, as calling for course and distance. In the other the surveyor surveys as he thinks proper, according to the plain calls of the entry; and if he conforms to the calls according to common understanding, being the oldest entry, and having the preference, in survey and grant, by law it must hold. But where certain courses and distances, are called fur in an entry, if different courses or distances are taken by the surveyor, this is what we call surveying contrary to an entry, and a subsequent claimant, without notice, upon the principles of equity, is not to be affected. We have conformed to these principles, and therefore without the aid of the statue limitations, we have the right to hold.

Dickerson and Campbell, in conclusion, said they did not mean to contest the regularity of the judgment. It was the act of 1797, that must be relied upon. The legislature were competent to make what alterations in the act of 1715, they thought proper.

Their meaning in the act of 1797, is very plain; when they require a deed of conveyance founded on a grant, it must necessarily be connected with it by regular conveyances, if it is not, it cannot be founded on a grant.

Todd, j. It is not intended at this time to give any decided opinion; I will therefore suggest, an idea which may be attended to on both sides. Is it not a rule, in construing explanatory statutes, to confine the construction strictly to the letter? Otherwise there would be an explanation upon an explanation.

Counsel, for the plaintiff. There can be no doubt, that the rule is as stated; the meaning of the words “founded on a grant” here, plainly import a connection of title; and irregular or void titles are the same as none. It is clear, that when John Eaton took a grant from the state he took the land as trustee for the heirs of Pinkham Eaton, and it was decided in the case of Williams vs. M’Ferson That an equitable right as a bond &c. was not subject to execution. The defendants have not produced any proof, who were the heirs of Pinkham Eaton, which they ought to have done. But if they had, it would not have been sufficient, far this land was not subject to the debts of the deceased: the law allowing bounty lands did not pass, until after the death of Eaton. Though it says the heirs of the deceased, shall receive a grant, the right must vest in them as purchasers, and not as heirs, and consequently the debts of the deceased cannot fall on it. The sheriff having no right to sell this land, no right of course was conveyed; the act of 1797 makes it necessary for the court to decide the legality of the proceedings at law, as well as the conveyance. If either are essentially defective, there cannot be a regular chain of title. Eatons entry was a mere nullity, as it was made is the name of Pinkham Eaton, when he was dead. In the argument of the plaintiffs counsel, every position taken by the defendants, was contesed at length.

Among others, it was urged, that the statute of limitations was not to be favoured, and if doubtful ought to be construed in favour of the plaintiff, so as to save his right. Mr. Campbell towards his conclusion observed, that John Eaton, did not take the land as heir, and if he did, as one of the heirs, he held it as trustee, and nothing but a bill in equity could render it liable to execution.

Todd, j. There is one point in this case, that I wish the plaintiffs counsel to attend to particularly, which is this: If Pinkham Eaton’s heirs, are satisfied as to the proceedings in obtaining the judgment at law, and selling the land, can strangers take advantage of any errors in those proceedings, or complain of them in a collateral way?

Mr. Campbell, concluded by observing that they had the oldest grant, which gave them a clear legal right, and to take away that, the court should see that there was a regular chain of title.

Overton, for the defendants observed, that as the court would have the matter under consideration, he wished leave to state as to the construction of statutes that the difference between an explanatory statute, alluded to by one of the court, seemed to consist in this. An explanatory statute should never be extended, nor narrowed by an equitable construction, where the words were plain, because this would be an explanation upon an explanation; but if doubtful, as was manifestly the case in the act of 1797, the same rule must he applied, as in other cases to find out the intention of the legislature. What did the legislature mean to do in passing the 4th section of the act, of 1797? The answer is in the preamble, to remove doubt, as to the act of 1715: What was that doubt? We all know it was, whether a naked possession, without deed of ungranted land, would produce a bar or not. To carry the act any further, new principles will be introduced and as to the intention of the legislature in introducing them whether any,& to what extent,must be ascertained by the principles of sound construction,in the same manner as in any other case; there may be different rules in construing the same statute as where its provisions are penal and also remedial. so here if it be doubtful whether the enacting words go further than the preamble which is to explain if the act be considered as explanatory, it must receive such a construction as will confine it strictly to the removal of doubts, if attempted to be explained further, it will be subject to such rules as will enable judges to ascertain whether the legislature designed to introduce a new law, instead of explaining an old one; and he took it to be a clear principle, that the court would not construe such an act, as introductive of a new law, unless the words used by the legislature, could not admit of any other construction. All the rule respecting the construction of statutes amount to nothing, when the intention of the legislature is plainly experessed; they vanish they are never though of. In doubtful cases the intention is what is sought after and the rules of construction, which are nothing but the dictates of common sense apply in one case as well as in another according to the subject matter.

Todd j. Let a new trial be granted in order to avoid delay. There are several points which may be considered open to further discussion upon the trial, if the parties choose.

M’Nairy, j. It was clear to him from the wording of the act of 1715, that irregular and defective conveyances were sufficient, with seven years possession, which existed in this case & he felt well satisfied, that the statute applied. The construction of the act of 1715 by the defendants counsel, he believed to be correct.

Todd, j. As to the construction of the act of 1797, he had great doubts at first, which were not entirely removed. The opinion of those who knew the cause of making the statute, and the doubts intended to be removed, certainly deserve consideration in doubtful cases. The case however will stand open for a new trial. 
      
       See 2 Bay. 539. 2 Binney, 109. 3 Call. 242.
     
      
       Frazier vs. Haw; at Nashville, in the state district court.
     
      
      Bac. Ab. Ed. 1807, tit. grant, I. 393. H. 3 392. H. 2 391, c.399, n. 378, 381. H. 1 388. 1 Hayw. 238, 239, 254, 377, 496. 2 Hayw. 139, 148, 160, 179,183 354, 384, 301, 347, 348, 350. Acts Ten. 1796, c. 20.
     
      
      
        5 Com. Dig. tit. pleader 3 B. 7, 3 B. 9, See also, 4 Mass. R.612. Hardin's R. 291. 2 Caine’s C. E. 255, 259, and Swift’s L. E.
     
      
       Latch. 112.
     
      
       1 Com. Dig. tit. Abatement. F 12, 13, 14, 15.
     
      
       5 Com. Dig. tit. Pleader, 3 B. 1.
     
      
       2 Tidd’s Pr. 935
     
      
       See 1 Wash. 313.
     
      
       6 Com, Dig. tit. Return, F. 1. 4 Com. Dig. tit. Execution, C. 7. See 1 Dall, 63, 93.
     
      
       2 Tidd’s Pr. 936. Com. Dig. tit. Execution, C. 6. 2 Hay. 79, 80, 1 Hay. 95, 71, 65, 66, 62, 63. See 2 Binn. 223. 1 Binney, 40. 2 Bay. 329. 4 Dall. 220. 1 Wash. 313.
     
      
       2 Salk. 600. Ld. Ray. 669.
     
      
       Amb. 761.
     
      
       1 Hayw. 11. 2 Hay. 88, 223,
     
      
       2 Hayw. 336.
     
      
       2 Hay. 69 Napier's Lessee vs. Simpson, Clarkville, June 1869.
     
      
       Cowp. 217. 1 Burr. 119. 1 Hay 319. 2 Hay 69, 114, 59, 11, 345. See 14 Mass. 188 2 Bay 160. 1 Bigney, 212.
     
      
       2 Bac. Ab. 423, tit. Ejectment, D. 3. 6 Com. Dig. tit. Trespass B 12, 2 Str. 1128. 2 Hayw. 345 1I.2 Caines C. E. 301 4 John. 230.
     
      
       2 Burr 958.
     
      
       4 Dall. 210, 213, 3 Binney, 30, 32.
     
      
       Hoggat vs. M'Crory, Kerr's lessee vs. Porter and Kenrick & Als, vs. Dallum, S. C. E. and A.
     
      
      See Wil. ed. Bac. Ab. 388 and notes.
     
      
       2 Bl. R. 1226.
     
      
       11 Mod. 150. 6 Wils. ed. Bac. Ab. 384.
     
      
      
         In 2 Bos. & Pul. 24, Ld. Eldon observes, “that when a general principle for the construction of an instrument is once laid down, the court will not be restrained from making their own application of that principle, because there are cases in which, it may have been applied in a different manner; the principle being once acknowledged, the only difficulty consists in making the most accurate application of it.” See 2. Cr. 386, 399, 4. T. R. 793 Willis 395. 1 Mass. R. 150 151. 2. Cr. 400. 2 Cr. 341. 23. 24. 52, 1. Burr. 447. 3 Mass. R. 21. 22. 6. Wils [ed. Bac. Ab. 383.
     
      
       At a subsequent term, there was a verdict for the defendants.
     