Legal Opinion

Howard v. Massengale

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1884PublishedCited by 8 opinions

FROM HAMILTON. Appeal from the Chancery Court at Chattanooga. W. M. BRADFORD, Ch.

1Opinion of the Court

Ingersoll, Sp. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an ejectment bill to recover about six acres of land on Lookout Mountain, valuable as a summer resort. The answers of defendants rely upon title in themselves, want of title in complainant, and outstanding title in a third, party. It is clearly proven that all parties claim title under one Foster, who is admitted to have been the owner in 1849. It is not necessary, therefore, for either party asserting title to deraign it from the State: 3 Head, 8, 468; 6 Baxt., 114; 2 Greenl. Ev., sec. 307.

The question for determination is, who has…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Jackson ex dem. Klock v. HudsonNew York Supreme Court · 1808
  2. Commonwealth v. DudleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
  3. Salter v. Doe ex dem. WilliamsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1851
  4. Foster v. JoiceU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1819

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Bledsoe County v. McReynoldsTennessee Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Clement v. NicholsTennessee Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Uhlhorn v. KeltnerCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1986
  4. Walsh v. TiptonTennessee Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Fair v. CurryTennessee Supreme Court · 1944

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API