Hanes v. Peck's Lessee
Tennessee Supreme Court
Indulgent to the weakness of our nature, as a matter of public policy, to promote the repose of society, and to put down litigation, courts intend the existen.ee of facts, when it is unreasonable to expect evidence of them.
Read the full summary
Indulgent to the weakness of our nature, as a matter of public policy, to promote the repose of society, and to put down litigation, courts intend the existen.ee of facts, when it is unreasonable to expect evidence of them. Thus a grant will be presumed from long-continued and uninterrupted possession, as where the party and those under whom he claims have been in the peaceable enjoyment and possession of the land upwards of thirty years. [Overruling winton v. Rodgers, 2 Tenn. 185. And see acc. Gilchrist v. McGee, 9 Y. 457; Brock v. Burchett, 2 Sw. 31; williams v. Donell, 2 Head, 695; Snoddy…
1Opinion of the CourtCrabb, J.
The defendant in error brought an action of ejectment for a tract of land which he particularly described in his declaration. The plaintiff in error was permitted to defend in the room and stead of the casual ejector, and pleaded the general issue. The cause was tried in the Circuit Court of Knox County, at August term, 1825, and a verdict and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff. Hanes appealed to this Court.
Upon the trial below the lessor of the plaintiff produced a grant for part of the land in dispute, dated in 1815. A bill of exceptions not professing to set out all the evidence…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jackson ex dem. Wright v. DieffendorfNew York Supreme Court · 1808
- Gwathney v. StumpTennessee Supreme Court · 1814