Carpenter v. Britton
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Trespass quare clausum. Before, after, and. at the time of the trespass the defendant claimed title to the locus in quo, and so informed the plaintiff, who, relying upon the statements of the defendant, and in good faith believing that the title "was in question, brought his action in the supreme court.
Read the full summary
Trespass quare clausum. Before, after, and. at the time of the trespass the defendant claimed title to the locus in quo, and so informed the plaintiff, who, relying upon the statements of the defendant, and in good faith believing that the title "was in question, brought his action in the supreme court. After service of the writ, and before entry of the action, the plaintiff was informed by the defendant that his title was not questioned; and upon the trial it was not questioned. A referee assessed the plaintiff’s damages at one dollar. Judgment was ordered on the report. The defendant moved…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
In actions of trespass qu. cl. the title to the real estate may be called in question by the pleadings or by the evidence upon the trial. Ward v. Bartlett, 1 N. H. 14; Bachelder v. Green, 38 N. H. 265; Pevare v. Towne, 57 N. H. 220. The only question in this case is, whether the defendant is estopped to deny that he disputed the plaintiff’s title. The case finds that “ before, after-, and at the time of the trespass the defendant claimed title to the locus in quo, and so informed the plaintiff, who, relying upon the statements of the defendant, and in good faith believing that the title was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pevare v. TowneSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1876