White v. Everest
Supreme Court of Vermont
■ The questions decided in this case appear in the following bilí of exceptions allowed at the County Court,, to wit: • “ This is an; “ action of ejectment to recover the seizin and possession of ten “ acres of land in the township of Addison, and described as part “ of lot No. 24 in the second division of the 8000-acre-tract, so cal- “ led.
Read the full summary
■ The questions decided in this case appear in the following bilí of exceptions allowed at the County Court,, to wit: • “ This is an; “ action of ejectment to recover the seizin and possession of ten “ acres of land in the township of Addison, and described as part “ of lot No. 24 in the second division of the 8000-acre-tract, so cal- “ led. Plea, general issue.' Verdict, not guilty, “ On the trial the plaintiff'relied upon making, out a title to the “ premises in question by deeds of conveyance-,• and by 'an undis- “ turbed possession of the premises, previous to the ouster by the “…
1Opinion of the CourtHutchinson, J.
The principal business for the jury was to ascertain where the line is that legally sepa- ' ratesbetween lot 24 and 25. For, we must understand from the case, that the plaintiff owns lot No. 24, and the defendant lot No. 25, excepting that the north ten acres of 24 have become legally attached to No. 25. If it were not so, the party excepting must show it, in order to evince that the decision of the County Court of which he complains is incorrect. Now, the plaintiff contends that the defendanthas gone south, and evicted him from a second ten acres of lot No 24. To show this, the plaintiff has…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Camp v. CampSupreme Court of Vermont · 1887
- Burton v. LazellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1844
- Smith v. BullockSupreme Court of Vermont · 1844
- Chamberlin v. Estate of ChamberlinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1844
- Henry & Pierce v. Bank of SalinaNew York Supreme Court · 1843