Elliot v. Heath
Superior Court of New Hampshire
This was a writ of entry in which the demanded premises were described as follows : — “ A certain tract of land situated in said Boscawen, being all that part of the homestead farm of the late Nathaniel Gookin, of said B. which was conveyed to Joseph Elliot, by P. Gookin, administrator of the goods and estate of said Nathaniel, except what has been conveyed by said Joseph Elliot, to Joseph Couch, by deed, dated February 1, 1827. The tract demanded being the same that was…
Read the full summary
This was a writ of entry in which the demanded premises were described as follows : — “ A certain tract of land situated in said Boscawen, being all that part of the homestead farm of the late Nathaniel Gookin, of said B. which was conveyed to Joseph Elliot, by P. Gookin, administrator of the goods and estate of said Nathaniel, except what has been conveyed by said Joseph Elliot, to Joseph Couch, by deed, dated February 1, 1827. The tract demanded being the same that was conveyed tome by my father, J. E. by deed, dated March 26,1827, whereof the said Heath unjustly, and without judgment,…
1Opinion of the CourtUpham, J.
In this case the demandant claims that portion of the homestead farm of the late Nathaniel Gookin which’ was conveyed by said Gookin, administrator to Joseph Elliot, excepting what has been conveyed by said Elliot to Joseph Couch, by deed of February 1, 1827, and is the same land which the plaintiff holds by deed from said Elliot, dated March 26, 1827. It does not appear that either of the deeds has been recorded.
It is laid down by Stearns, as to declarations in writs of entry, “ that the description should be so certain as to enable the tenant to understand what is demanded against him, and…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Kenniston v. HannafordSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875