Oatman & Sherman v. Barney
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trespass qua. clau. The case was referred, and the referee found the following facts: “ The locus in quo is a lot of wood and timber land. In 1886, said lot was conveyed by David ■ Robinson to A. Knights, Philo Buck, and M. Judson, by deed of warranty. The proof of this deed was by parol, it appearing that the deed was lost, and never recorded.
Read the full summary
Trespass qua. clau. The case was referred, and the referee found the following facts: “ The locus in quo is a lot of wood and timber land. In 1886, said lot was conveyed by David ■ Robinson to A. Knights, Philo Buck, and M. Judson, by deed of warranty. The proof of this deed was by parol, it appearing that the deed was lost, and never recorded. TJhe plaintiff objected to parol proof of the contents of said deed; but such proof was admitted, to show the extent and character of the possession of the grantees therein named. It appeared that the grantees went into the possession of said lot in…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Rotcb, J.
The first question presented by the report, is upon the ruling of the referee in allowing parol proof of the contents of the deed from David Robinson to Knights, Buck, and Judson. To lay the foundation for the introduction of this proof, it was first necessary to prove the loss of the deed. This must have been made ; for the referee has found that it appeared that the *598deed was lost. If the deed would have been admissible, the fact of its loss having been established, parol proof of its contents was clearly admissible, as the best evidence…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Spear v. DittySupreme Court of Vermont · 1837
- Crawford v. CheneySupreme Court of Vermont · 1840
- Brown v. WrightSupreme Court of Vermont · 1843
- Coit v. WellsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1829
3Cited by2 opinions
- Aldrich v. GriffithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1893
- Lawrence v. PelletierSupreme Court of Vermont · 1990