Bennock v. Whipple
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
This was a writ of entry, in which the demandant counted upon his own seizin within twenty years, and a disseizin done by tho defendant, and was tried upon the general issue by Emery J. October term, 1834. Tho plaintiff, to prove his title, read a deed from John Barker and Stephen S. Crosby, to Joseph H. Bead and Abraham Bead, dated Oct. 20th, 1819 ; and a mortgage from the two latter, back to Barker and Crosby, of the same date, to secure the payment of $350. Also an…
Read the full summary
This was a writ of entry, in which the demandant counted upon his own seizin within twenty years, and a disseizin done by tho defendant, and was tried upon the general issue by Emery J. October term, 1834. Tho plaintiff, to prove his title, read a deed from John Barker and Stephen S. Crosby, to Joseph H. Bead and Abraham Bead, dated Oct. 20th, 1819 ; and a mortgage from the two latter, back to Barker and Crosby, of the same date, to secure the payment of $350. Also an assignment of the mortgage from Barker and Crosby to Edward Tuckerman, dated Bee. 31, 1830, and an assignment from Tuckerman…
1Opinion of the Court
Weston C. J.
The demandant has made out a title to the premises demanded, and judgment is to be rendered in his favor, unless the testimony rejected ought to have been received, and would, in connection with the other facts proved, have sustained the defence. The bond given by the demandant to Abraham Read, conditioned to convey the premises to Mercy, his wife, and which has been assigned to the tenant, was given nearly two years after the date of the deed from Joseph II. and Abraham Read to the demandant. That bond was altogether matter of contract, and passed no interest in the land. The…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hancock v. MaurerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
- Hammon v. DouglasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872