Casey v. Casey
Supreme Court of Vermont
Ejectment. Plea, general issue. Trial by court, December Term, 1882, Veazey, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff. The plaintiff and defendant were brothers. The declaration al. leged a seisin in fee in the plaintiff of a narrow piece of land, including a spring, and ouster by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed title by virtue of his father’s will. The $700 had not been paid.
Read the full summary
Ejectment. Plea, general issue. Trial by court, December Term, 1882, Veazey, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff. The plaintiff and defendant were brothers. The declaration al. leged a seisin in fee in the plaintiff of a narrow piece of land, including a spring, and ouster by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed title by virtue of his father’s will. The $700 had not been paid. The clause in contention was as follows: “I give and devise to my beloved son, John Casey, the home farm, which I purchased of Peltiah Armstrong, and the land adjoining the same on the north, which I purchased of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Taft, J.
I. The right of the plaintiff to maintain this action depends upon whether he took under his father’s will the legal estate in the premises sued for. His father devised the premises to the plaintiff for life, with remainder to the plaintiff’s children, upon the express condition that the plaintiff paid to his brother Michael seven hundred dollars on or before the first day of April after the testator’s death. That sum has never been paid ; and the defendant insists that the legal title to the premises has never vested in the plaintiff. There…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Schrader v. SchraderSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
- Brown v. BrownNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1949
- Henderson v. GrayNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1914
- In Re Estate of PhearmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1930
- Buttram v. FinleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.