Hapgood v. Burt
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action oí ejectment, for lands in Sheldon, in the county of Franklin ; and the parties having agreed on three persons as referees, the county court by their rule referred the ae-t 3 J J tion to them to report thereon.
Read the full summary
This was an action oí ejectment, for lands in Sheldon, in the county of Franklin ; and the parties having agreed on three persons as referees, the county court by their rule referred the ae-t 3 J J tion to them to report thereon. The referees having fully heard' the parties, reported, That “ on trial, the plaintiff claimed the land described in his declaration by possession, and proved that in 1804 or11805, he- and' others made coaf on a piece of land then wild-parcel oflotsno-. 33, 38, and 57, which lots cornered together. The-land thus claimed, by cutting’oft the timber for coal, amounting…
1Opinion of the Court
Baylies, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court. — The correctness of the decision of the court below depends upon the facts,, which were reported by the referees, and the law to be applied to those facts. It is not every possession of lands for fifteen years, that will give the tenant a title to such lands. Much depends on the character of the possession. To constitute a title, the possession should conform to the law, which is well expressed by Parsons, Ch. J., in the case of “ The proprietors of the Kenebeck Purchase vs. John Springer, (4 Mass. Rep. 416.) He says, “When a man enters on the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Proprietors of the Kennebeck Purchase v. SpringerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
3Cited by3 opinions
- Conyers v. KenanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1848
- Doe ex dem. Kennedy's Executors v. Townsley's HeirsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
- Atkinson v. PattersonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1874