Free v. James
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Trespass qu. cl. fr. The defendant pleaded the general issue with notice of a claim of title. The plaintiff claimed title to the land in question by descent from their grandfather Stephen Hoyt, through his son and their father, Henry Hoyt, deceased. The question pertained wholly to the location of the dividing line between the land of the plaintiffs and that of the defendant.
Read the full summary
Trespass qu. cl. fr. The defendant pleaded the general issue with notice of a claim of title. The plaintiff claimed title to the land in question by descent from their grandfather Stephen Hoyt, through his son and their father, Henry Hoyt, deceased. The question pertained wholly to the location of the dividing line between the land of the plaintiffs and that of the defendant. The plaintiffs offered in evidence the distribution of the estate of the said Stephen Hoyt, made in the year 1828, by Seth Taylor and Erastus Sturges, distributors appointed by the court of probate of the district of…
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
The sketch or map, offered in evidence by the defendant, was properly rejected by the court. It is true that it appears to have been made by a competent surveyor, judging from the fact that it was signed by him; but for what purpose, and on what occasion, does not appear; and whether it was made from any actual survey of the land, or the facts contained in it were collected from the contents of deeds and other documents, cann’ot be known. It could not have been made as a part of the acts of the distributors, in the progress of the distribution of Stephen Hoyt’s estate, because it was made, as…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Banks v. WatrousSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1948
- Hurlburt v. BussemeySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1924
- State Ex Rel. Ray v. CastleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
- Golden v. RollinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1957