Ross v. McLung
31 U.S. 283 (1832)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Ross v. McLung, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 283 283 (1832)

Ross v. McLung, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 283 (1832)

31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 283

Syllabus

Construction of the act of the Legislature of North Carolina, concerning the registration of deeds, passed in 1715.

The questions which grow out of the language of this act, so far as they have been settled by judicial decisions, cannot be disturbed by this Court. Whatever might have been their opinion in this case, had it remained open for consideration, the peace of society, and the security of titles require that the court should conform to the construction which has been made in the courts of the state, if it can discover what that construction is.

In the probate of deeds, the court has a special limited jurisdiction, and the record should state facts which show its jurisdiction in the particular case. If this rule be disregarded, every deed admitted to record, on whatever evidence, must be considered as regularly admitted.

This was an action of ejectment instituted in the circuit court by the plaintiff in error for the recovery of five thousand acres of land situate in the District of East Tennessee.

On the trial of the cause, the plaintiff excepted to the opinion of the court in rejecting certain evidence offered by him in support of his title from the original grantor, Stockley Donelson, holding under a patent from the State of North Carolina. The court refused to admit the deed of conveyance to the plaintiff on the ground that the same was not registered according to the provisions of the law.

The bill of exceptions, containing the matters offered in evidence and rejected by the court, is stated in the opinion of the Court.

Page 31 U. S. 284

The case was argued by Mr. Polk, for the plaintiff in error; and by Mr. White, for the defendant.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.