Pitts v. Brown
Supreme Court of Vermont
Ejectment for laud in Maidstouc, known as lot No. 64, in the second division. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury, September Term, 1873, Ross, J., presiding. The plaintiff, to prove his title to the demanded premises, introduced evidence of a land-tax sale thereof by William Rich, a former collector of taxes.in Maidstone, which gave rise to several questions ; but as they are not material to the point decided, they are not stated.
Read the full summary
Ejectment for laud in Maidstouc, known as lot No. 64, in the second division. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury, September Term, 1873, Ross, J., presiding. The plaintiff, to prove his title to the demanded premises, introduced evidence of a land-tax sale thereof by William Rich, a former collector of taxes.in Maidstone, which gave rise to several questions ; but as they are not material to the point decided, they are not stated. He also introduced in evidence a deed of one half of said land from said Rich, collector as aforesaid, to Rufus Yallet, of Middlebury, Vt., and a deed from…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Royce, J.
In the view we have taken of this case, it becomes unnecessary to consider and decide the question made upon the trial affecting the validity of the vendue sale of the land in question by the collector, William Rich. The only claim of title made by the plaintiff was under said sale. Conceding that said sale was legal and valid, inasmuch as the plaintiff must show title in himself at the commencement of the suit, unless the evidence *88offered by him to show that the Rufus Yallet who is named as the person to whom the collector sold the land, and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Butler v. GaleSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
3Cited by3 opinions
- Vermont Marble Co. v. EastmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1917
- Brault v. WelchSupreme Court of Vermont · 2014
- Hilgendorf v. OstromAppellate Court of Illinois · 1892