Proprietors of Enfield v. Permit
Superior Court of New Hampshire
This was a writ of entry, brought to recover a tract of land in Enfield, in this county ; and was tried at May term, 1835, upon the general issue. This is the case reported 5 N. H. R. 280, and the demanded premises lie between the two lines hereafter mentioned. In the charter of Enfield, which was granted on the 4th July, 1761, the southerly line of the township is described as running south 68° east.
Read the full summary
This was a writ of entry, brought to recover a tract of land in Enfield, in this county ; and was tried at May term, 1835, upon the general issue. This is the case reported 5 N. H. R. 280, and the demanded premises lie between the two lines hereafter mentioned. In the charter of Enfield, which was granted on the 4th July, 1761, the southerly line of the township is described as running south 68° east. In the charter of Grantham the northerly line of the township is described as beginning at the south-west comer of Enfield, and running south 58° east, bounding on En-field. The charter of…
1Opinion of the Court
Richardson, C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.*
It must now be considered as settled law in this state, that where a demandant in a writ of entry shows an actual seizin in himself of the demanded premises, such seizin cannot be disproved on the part of the tenant by showing a title in a third person, under whom he does not claim. 3 N. H. R. 274, Bailey vs. March; 13 Pick. 24, King vs. Barns.
But it is insisted, on the part of the tenant, that the evidence introduced by the demandants was insufficient to prove that they ever had an actual seizin of the gore of land in which the demanded…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stokes v. DawesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1826
3Cited by2 opinions
- Proprietors of Enfield v. DaySuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1841
- Hutchins v. CarletonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1849