Whittemore v. Bean
Superior Court of New Hampshire
This was a petition for partition, in which the petitioner alleged, that he was seized in fee, as a tenant in common with the respondeat, of a tract of land in Salisbury, and prayed that partition might be made. The respondent pleaded that he was sole seized of the premises, and traversed the seizin of the petitioner, and issue was joined upon the traverse.
Read the full summary
This was a petition for partition, in which the petitioner alleged, that he was seized in fee, as a tenant in common with the respondeat, of a tract of land in Salisbury, and prayed that partition might be made. The respondent pleaded that he was sole seized of the premises, and traversed the seizin of the petitioner, and issue was joined upon the traverse. The cause was tried at September term, 1831, and a verdict returned in favor of the respondent, which was taken, subject to the opinion of the court, upon the following case James Lowell, being seized, in fee, of a farm, of which the land…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court.
An unrecorded deed of land is valid against the grantor and against his heir. But if the grantor, or his heir, afterwards, for a valuable consideration, convoy the land to another purchaser, who has ho notice of the unrecorded deed, the last conveyance will prevail against the first- And the devisee of the grantor would stand on the same ground as his heir. If then, the land passed in this case, by the will of James Lowell,'the verdict must stand. 2 Pick. 184, Somes v. Brewer; 16 Mass. Rep 406, Trull v. Bigelow; 14 ditto, 296, Connecticut v. Bradish; 3 Pick. 149, M'Mechan v.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Poor v. RobinsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
3Cited by2 opinions
- George v. GreenSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843
- Moore v. KidderSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875