Civil Actioh, to recover the Possession of Land, tried at Eall Term,1877,of Rutherford Superior Court, before Kerr,J. This action was brought to recover a tract of land ■alleged to be in possession of the defendant and wrongfully withheld from the plaintiffs The defendant denies the plaintiffs’ allegations and sets up title in himself.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1886
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶1
(After stating the case as above.) We think ithe Court was correct in both rulings. The possession of William Arthur, being under James Arthur who acted for himself and wife, was but an extension of the possession ■of the rightful owner and for her benefit. And if this was not so, the result would not be changed, y The case is simply this: — There has been a continuous adverse possession -of the land for the space of thirty-three, years from 1815 to 1848, under deeds defining the same by metes and boundaries, by those successively under whom the plaintiffs derive title, during the last nine years of which, the intestate Toliver Davis had possession under a deed in form suflfi-■-cient to pass the estate in fee. These facts entitle the plaintiffs to recover.
¶2
It has been settled by repeated adjudications in this State, that an adverse possession of lands for thirty years raises a •.presumption of a grant from the State, and it is not necessary even that there should be a privity or connexion among the successive tenants. We will only refer to some of the cases in support of the doctrine.
Fitzrandolph
v. Norman, Term Rep. 127;
Rogers
v.
Mabe,
4 Dev. 180;
Wallace
v.
Maxwell,
10 Ire. 110;
Reed
v.
Earnhart,
Ibid, 516. This presumption arises at common law and without the aid •of the Act of 1791, and it is the duty of the Court to instruct the jury to act upon it as a'‘rule of the law of evidence.
Simpson
v.
Hyatt,
1 Jones 517. The grant is inferred, not because of a belief that one did in fact issue, “ but because there is no proof that it did not, and in the nature •of things it would seem that
there an he no sufficient negative
*360
proof
of the kind supposed.
Bullard
v. Barksdale, 11 Ire, 461.
¶3
Title being thus out of the State, it vested in Tolifer Davis by virtue of his nine years possession under the deed-made to him in 1839, which professes, and in form is sufficient, to pass the estate in fee by virtue' of the Act of Limitations. Rev. Stat. ch. 65 § 1.
Taylor
v.
Gooch,
3 Jones 467.
