Henly ex rel. Marshall v. Gore
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Chancery, From the Circuit Court for Franklin County. Statement of the case. An occupant, to take advantage pf the 7 years jaw, must show a grant from tho state, to himself—directly, or by a regular succession of conveyances ; that it povers the land jn controversy, and n residence upon it for seven years, before the suit was brought.
Read the full summary
Chancery, From the Circuit Court for Franklin County. Statement of the case. An occupant, to take advantage pf the 7 years jaw, must show a grant from tho state, to himself—directly, or by a regular succession of conveyances ; that it povers the land jn controversy, and n residence upon it for seven years, before the suit was brought. A contract,made after the recovery in eject, for a purchase of the land, from the plaintiff, by the def’ts, would es-top thepi from denying his title; but a purchaser from the def’ts, before their contract with the pit’f. might set up his adverse title against…
1Opinion of the Court
Chief Justice Robertsoh and Judge Ewing
composing the Court in this case—the former delivered the following opinion.
Henly having, in an action of ejectment, obtained a judgment for eviction against Bratton, for about fifty acres of land—Bratton and one Cox,-shortly afterwards, to-wit, on the 30th of June, 1821,"made a contract in writing with his agent, Humphrey Marshall, whereby it was agreed that, for the price of nine dollars an acre, to be paid by them, in specified proportions, a conveyance of Henly’s title should be made to Cox, on full payment of the stipulated consideration; and from…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Hendricks v. McLeanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
- Thompson v. McDermottSupreme Court of Florida · 1883
- Berry v. HamiltonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1849
- Covington & Lexington Railroad v. Bowler's heirsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1872
- Sturges v. LongworthOhio Supreme Court · 1853
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.