Hamilton v. Crosby
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Disseizin; reserved by tbe superior court, upon facts found, for the advice of this court. The case is fully stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtDutton, J.
This is an action of disseizin, to recover a tract of land or an undivided portion thereof, situated in Danbury. The defendant denies any title to the land in the plaintiff, and also denies that he has ousted the plaintiff if she had any title.
We do not deem it necessary to discuss the question of ouster. We are satisfied that if the plaintiff had a legal title to the premises she is entitled to recover.
The only question which creates any serious difficulty in the case arises out . of the will of Andrew Akin, who, it is admitted, had at his decease an exclusive title to the demanded premises.…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Terry v. RodahanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1888
- Bevans v. MurrayIllinois Supreme Court · 1911
- Griffin v. GriffinIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
- Hamilton v. DownsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1866