Cutts v. Haskins
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This-was a real action, brought to recover an undivided moiety of the land described in the writ; the demandants claiming as cousins and heirs of one Silence Elliot, deceased, who, they allege, was seised of the same within fifty years before the bringing of the action.
Read the full summary
This-was a real action, brought to recover an undivided moiety of the land described in the writ; the demandants claiming as cousins and heirs of one Silence Elliot, deceased, who, they allege, was seised of the same within fifty years before the bringing of the action. At the trial, which was had upon the general issue, before Parker, J., November term, 1811, in this county, the seisin of the said Silence was proved, and the relation of the demandants, as set forth ; so that, as heirs at law, they were entitled to recover, unless the defence relied upon was legal and sufficient. It appeared…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The demandants, having established their title as heirs at law of the deceased, are entitled to judgment, unless the tenant has shown a good title in himself.
The title of the tenant is under a sale by him, as administrator of the deceased, by virtue of an order of the Court of Common Pleas for this county, founded upon a certificate of the judge of *478probate for the same county. Sundry exceptions have been taken by the demandants to the title thus set up by the tenant.
It was objected, first, that the intestates were, at the time of their decease, inhabitants of the county of…
2Cited by25 opinions
- Lámar v. MicouSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Johnson v. BeazleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Beckett v. SeloverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Jeffersonville Railroad v. Swayne's AdministratorIndiana Supreme Court · 1866
- Wight v. WallbaumIllinois Supreme Court · 1864
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.