Bean v. Moulton
Superior Court of New Hampshire
This was a writ of entry brought to recover a tract of land in Moultonborough. The writ was tested the 19th January, 1829. As to sixty-four acres, parcel of the demanded premises, the tenants pleaded the general issue, and as to the residue, they pleaded a disclaimer. The cause was tried at January term, 1831, and a verdict taken by consent for the demandant, subject to the opinion of the court upon the following case.
Read the full summary
This was a writ of entry brought to recover a tract of land in Moultonborough. The writ was tested the 19th January, 1829. As to sixty-four acres, parcel of the demanded premises, the tenants pleaded the general issue, and as to the residue, they pleaded a disclaimer. The cause was tried at January term, 1831, and a verdict taken by consent for the demandant, subject to the opinion of the court upon the following case. Andrew Rollins and Hiram Rollins, being seized of the demanded premises, on 12th July, 1816, conveyed the same to B, M. Bean, the demandant, J. S, Moulton, the tenant, and one…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The only question in this case is, whether the tenants, by showing a sale of the interest of William Carroll in the demanded premises, by his administrator, to a stranger, have disproved the seizin of the demandant, with respect to that interest ?
Nothing can be clearer than that the evidence introduced to show a sale of William Carroll’s interest in the land by his administrator, had no tendency-to disprove the seizin of this demandant, so as to defeat a recovery of that interest in this action.
The title of William Carroll immediately upon his de cease, vested in his heir and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gibson v. FarleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1820
- Bailey v. MarchSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1823
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bergin v. McFarlandSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1853