
    Anderson against Gilbert.
    An uninterrupted pos» session and occupation of land for five years prei ious to January, 1775, is a good title against a grant No claim to be admitted but a suit at lair.
    A certified copy of a deed duly recorded, is as good evidence as the original
    TRESPASS to try titles to 200 acres of land in New-bury county.
    The plaintiff in this case, claimed under a North-Carolina grant, dated the 25th of March., 1755, to one John Clark, On the 1st of October, 1755, Clark conveyed to Abraham Anderson, whose eldest son and heir at law, Abel Anderson, conveyed to the plaintiff.
    
      Shaw, for the plaintiff,
    produced a copy of the grant, which was admitted. He next produced a copy of the deed from Clark to Abraham Anderson, certified from the register’s office in Charleston; which was objected toby
    
      Ramsay and Colcock, counsel for the defendant,
    as no evidence had been offered to prove the loss of the original. But this objection was overruled, under the authority of the act making office copies from the secretary’s office, duly proved, and recorded, and attested, as good evidence as the originals. Trait’s Collection, 559. Pub. Laws, 129.
    Several witnesses were then called, who proved that Abel Anderson was the eldest son and heir at law of Abra■= ham Anderson, to whom Clark conveyed. Here the plaintiff rested his case.
    
      
      Colcock then stated to the court, that the defendant intended to rely entirely On possession, as he had no deeds to produce; but would prove an uninterrupted possession since the year 1766, to that day.
    This was objected to by Shaw, on the other side, who contended, that a bare naked possession, without proof of payment of some consideration, or colour of title., would not, under the limitation act, give a title. But this,
   Bat, J.

also overruled, as it had.always been held, that wherever a party intended to rely on possession for title, it was unnecessary either to prove payment of a consideration, or other colour of a title ; because it was occupancy alone that the law regarded, as a sufficient title in such cases.

The defendant then called sundry witnesses, who proved a possession on the part of himself, and his father, Jonathan Gilbert, (who conveyed to him,) from the year 1766, to that period; during all which time, his father and himself had resided on it, cleared a considerable part of it, and exercised every other kind of ownership over the whole tract, which proprietors generally exercise over their lands.

The plaintiff, in order to rebut the evidence of possession given by the defendant, offered to call witnesses to prove, that Abraham Anderson went with his deeds and shewed them to old Jonathan Gilbert, who was then living on the land, and actually shewed them to him in presence of a witness, and ordered him off the land; but that Gilbert remained on it by force, and kept it in a forcible manner from that time ; and, therefore, it was urged, that it would be unjust to suffer a man to take advantage off his own wrong.

Here again, however, Bay, J. overruled this kind of testimony, as improper. That if Anderson!'s claim was a good one, he ought to have brought his suit at law, and ejected Gilbert: for that the law recognised no other kind of claim than by an action at law. That this would appear obvious by a short view of the act of limitation, passed in 1712.

1. That the first clause of the act was retrospective, and confirmed the titles of all those who had been seven years in quiet possession, before the passing the a.' t.

2. That the second clause was prospective, and allows all persons, five years after the right accrues, to prosecute their claims to lands ; and bars them for ever afterwards, if they do not, except infants, and Jeme covert&e.)

3. The third clause prescribes expressly, that this claim shall be bij action at knv, and not otherwise.

The jury found a verdict for the defendant.

Shaw then gave notice of a motion for a new trial, but he never brought it forward.  