Hyde v. Morgan
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action qui tarn on the statute prohibiting the alienation of lands of which the grantor is ousted, to any other person than the one in possession, brought against the grantor, to recover the penalty given by that statute for such alienation.
Read the full summary
This was an action qui tarn on the statute prohibiting the alienation of lands of which the grantor is ousted, to any other person than the one in possession, brought against the grantor, to recover the penalty given by that statute for such alienation. The declaration alleged, that the plaintiff, on the 11th of , , , , , r April, 1838, was, and ever since has been, possessed of a certain lot of land lying in the town of Stonington, at the Head of Mystic, bounded, &c. containing about eight square rods, claiming it to be his own in fee simple, and holding it adversely to all others ; that the…
1Opinion of the CourtStorrs, J.
The onlv question in this case, is, whether in an action for the penalty prescribed m the statute alienations of land of which the grantor is ousted, excepting to the person in actual possession, brought against the grantor, it is necessary that the plaintiff should prove, on the trial, that the whole of the premises alleged, in the declaration, to have been conveyed contrary to the statute, was possessed adversely to the grantor and his grantee; or, whether the plaintiff may not prove such adverse possession as to a part only of the premises, and recover accordingly.
In this case, the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Loewenberg v. WallaceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1960
- Holly v. BrownSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1841
- State v. AlonzoConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011
- Rosen Film Delivery System v. SaracenoConnecticut Superior Court · 1947
- Rosen Film Delivery System, Inc. v. SaracenoPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1947