Case ID: scl_12/html/0479-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Nott\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Enos Tart vs. James Crawford.
    Whether any and what kind of notice will dispense with the necessity of recording a deed, are questions for the court; but whether the party had or had not such notice, is a question for the jury. 
    
    Tried at Marion, Fall Term’, 1821. Trespass to try titles.
    m JL HIS wás a motion for a new trial on two grounds:
    1st. Because the presiding judge mistook the lav/, in charging the jury that nothing but actual and explicit notice of the existence of a deed, would dispence with the necessity of recording it. *
    2d. Because the presiding judge charged the jury that what was sufficient notice, was a question for the consideration of the court, and not for the jury.
    
      
      
         Vide, ante, 265, the same case. — U.
    
   Mr. Justice Nott

delivered the opinion of the court.

The first question made in this case, was determined by this court at the last term, (Ante 265.) Indeed the opinion of the presiding judge in the court below, was expressed in the very words of the opinion delivered in this court on that occasion.

With regard to the second ground, the attorney who , made out this brief, has mistaken the charge of the court. The judge stated to the jury that whether any, and what kind of notice would dispense with the necessity of recording a deed, were questions for the consideration of the court. But whether the party had or had not sucn ñotice, was a question for the jury.

Evans, for the motion.

Ervin, contra.

The motion was therefore refused.

Justices Huger, Gantt and Johns on, concurred.