Rich v. Elliot
Supreme Court of Vermont
Ejectment. The plaintiff claimed title to the land in question under a deed from the defendant to him, in which the land conveyed was described as “ all the first division, “ drawn to the right of Ebenezer Walbridge, except forty-six “ acres and one fourth, off the west end of said lot.”
Read the full summary
Ejectment. The plaintiff claimed title to the land in question under a deed from the defendant to him, in which the land conveyed was described as “ all the first division, “ drawn to the right of Ebenezer Walbridge, except forty-six “ acres and one fourth, off the west end of said lot.” On the trial in the county court, the plaintiff gave in evidence the defendant’s deedjto him, and it was admitted that, if the lot referred to in the deed were divided by a straight line, parallel with the west line of the lot, in such manner as to leave to the defendant the number of acres by him reserved,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Redfield, J.
The general rule of law upon the subject of admitting oral evidence to contradict, vary or explain a written instrument is too well settled to require confirmation; The only difficulty; as in most cases, consists in the application of the rule, and in fixing the extent of the exceptions.
It is well settled that oral evidence may be received to explain a lafent ambiguity, or to define the extent of the subject matter to which any written instrument refers, or to explain the import of equivocal terms. But it is also well settled that a patent…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McDowell v. PeytonSupreme Court of the United States · 1825
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kinnear & Gager Manufacturing Co. v. MinerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1914
- Patch v. KeelerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- United States v. 5.324 Acres of LandDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1948