It cannot be questioned but that at common law ^a grant to a deceased person passed no estate to his heirs; or in other words, nothing passed by the grant But the legislature of North Carolina, supposing this principle to operate inconveniently, in the year 1779 passed a remedial law on the subject, and declared that where a man made an entry, and then died before a grant issued, the estate should pass to his heirs, although the grant issued in his name after his death. The warrant which authorized the entry in 1807 was founded upon a previous entry made in 1784, during the lifetime of George Dougherty. If that entry had been directly carried into a grant in the name of Dougherty, although after his death, yet the estate would have passed to his heirs under the act of 1779, before alluded to. This would have been the fact if the first entry had been special; but it was not special, and therefore it was re-entered in 1807. Shall not this last entry relate back to the first? Not in such a manner, I admit, as to make the claim, in point of priority, good from 1784, but for the purpose of bringing it within the act of 1779. The act of 1779 should be construed liberally. It is a remedial law. and should be construed so as to advance the remedy and suppress the mischief. I am of opinion that this case comes fairly within the spirit and meaning of it. I do not consider the entry made in 1807 entirely as an original entry, but rather as a re-entry. And there is the less difficulty in giving this construction, as no inconvenience results from it, and because it works no injury to any person.
accorded with the opinion of Judge TODD as to the act of 1779 being remedial. He, however, very much doubted whether the grant could pass any estate to the heirs of Dougherty. He said he would acquiesce in the opinion, though he was far from being satisfied.