Skinner v. McDaniel
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was a writ of review, brought in pursuance of the stature1, c7t. 7,55, to review an action of ejectment which had been brought by McDaniel against Skinner, and John and William Hurd,and others.
Read the full summary
This was a writ of review, brought in pursuance of the stature1, c7t. 7,55, to review an action of ejectment which had been brought by McDaniel against Skinner, and John and William Hurd,and others. The officer who served the writ returned that he had served it on three of the defendants, who resided in the county of Orleans, but made no mention of Skinner and the two HurdSf who- resided in Massachusetts, nor of Hadley, another defendant, who resided in the state of New-York. Rut the action was entered in court agaiust all the defendants. The following record shows the proceedings in the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Baylies, J.
There is no doubt the court below instructed the jury correctly. It has long been established, that the plaintifF, in ejectment must show the defendants in possession of the land *420demanded, at the commencement of his action : showing that tits' defendants have some sort of claim to the land is not sufficient. But when we examine the record of proceedings in the action of ejectment,.and the judgement rendered on default, we cannot discover the necessity of a writ of revieiv being brought by Skinner and the two Hurds to reverse that judgement.…
2Cited by5 opinions
- In Re Hanrahan's WillSupreme Court of Vermont · 1937
- Lynch v. Town of RutlandSupreme Court of Vermont · 1894
- Hammond & Draper v. Wilder & LockeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1853
- Capital Garage Co. v. PowellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1922
- Arbuckle v. WalkerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1890