Mixer v. Reed
Supreme Court of Vermont
Ejectment, to recover the possession of the back door yard or court to a certain tenement situate in Brattleboro. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury. On trial, the plaintiff introduced testimony tending to prove that she was in possession of the premises, and that the defendant had erected over a well in said yard, a shed about eight feet square, and rested.
Read the full summary
Ejectment, to recover the possession of the back door yard or court to a certain tenement situate in Brattleboro. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury. On trial, the plaintiff introduced testimony tending to prove that she was in possession of the premises, and that the defendant had erected over a well in said yard, a shed about eight feet square, and rested. The defendant then introduced testimony, to sustain the issue on his part, and offered in evidence a deed from John H. King to Alonzo Blodgett, dated March 3, 1836, conveying to said Blodgett the premises in question, excepting…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redeield, Ch. J.
The principal question in this case is, whether the defendant owned the land in which t| right to use the water. John H. King, befo; seems to have owned the land and well. In ffeaAdead. haj^sSrved it by the terms “ two-thirds of the well, on the aborc described premises, in common” with the grantee. This he conveys to defendant, by the terms “ spring or well, situate,” &c. These terms all evidently mean the same thing, so that we can gather very little, properly, from any supposed difference between “ well” and “ well of water.” One…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Branson v. StudabakerIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
- Coolidge v. HagerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1870
- Davis v. SpauldingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Woodcock & Vinton v. EsteySupreme Court of Vermont · 1871
- Churchill v. HarrisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.