Downer v. Richardson
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of ejectment for lots No. 43 and 44? in the town of Stow. The general issue was pleaded. The plaintiff proved the defendant in possession- of the land,. described in his declaration, at the time of the service of the writ. Plaintiff also gave in evidence a- copy of a- deed' of the same land, from Sessions and Kellogg, to the defendant,, dated 27th of February, 1834,. duly acknowledged and recorded.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment for lots No. 43 and 44? in the town of Stow. The general issue was pleaded. The plaintiff proved the defendant in possession- of the land,. described in his declaration, at the time of the service of the writ. Plaintiff also gave in evidence a- copy of a- deed' of the same land, from Sessions and Kellogg, to the defendant,, dated 27th of February, 1834,. duly acknowledged and recorded. Also, a copy of a- deed of the same land from Ozias Gallup to said Sessions-and Kellogg, datedj 9th December, 1833, duly acknowledged and recorded. The plaintiff, also,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court, was delivered by
Redfield, J.
The only question to be determined in this case is, whether the defendant is estopped from disputing plaintiff’s title, by notice of the contract with Thomas B. Downer. We think that the doctrine of estoppel does not properly apply to this case, as between these parties.
It is first to be remembered, that Thomas B. Downer purchased his right of the acknowledged tenant of Seymour. He becomes, of course, the tenant of Seymour. He sold to Gallup all his right, i. e. the right of becoming Seymour’s tenant, or quasi tenant, with the right of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Kolb v. BankheadTexas Supreme Court · 1856
- Reynolds v. BeanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1917