McIntyre v. Ward
Supreme Court of Vermont
Indebitatus Assumpsit for money paid, laid out and expended. Plea, the general issue, and trial by the court, — Redfield, J., presiding.
Read the full summary
Indebitatus Assumpsit for money paid, laid out and expended. Plea, the general issue, and trial by the court, — Redfield, J., presiding. On trial it appeared, that, on the twenty sixth day of October, 1805, Elisha Randall conveyed to Ira Haskins the north one hundred acres oflot No. 40 in the third division in Moretown, and that Haskins, by mistake, took possession of lot No. 39, supposing it to be No. 40, and continued in possession until his decease, in 1811, when the land was assigned to his daughter Zilpha Ann Haskins, who afterwards married Lorenzo D. Herrick. On the eighth day of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Williams, Ch. J.
From the several deeds and the decree in chancery, which were in evidence, it is evident, that, although Ward was not a party to the decree of foreclosure obtained by Herrick and his wife against the plaintiffs in this suit, so as to be affected by that decree, yet that the land, which was deeded to him by Zilpha Ann Haskins, and which he mortgaged to her by the name of Zilpha Ann Herrick, was the same land which he deeded to Barnet with covenants of warranty, and which Barnet quitclaimed to McIntyre, one of the plaintiffs. In the deed…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Dorothy A. Fleming v. Evelyn McEnanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
- Peterson v. HowellSupreme Court of Florida · 1930
- Dorothy A. Fleming v. Evelyn McEnanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
- Sargent v. CurrierSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1870