Howe v. Blanden
Supreme Court of Vermont
Ejectment for land in Putney. The plaintiff described in bis declaration three several parcels of land, of which he demanded the seisin and peaceable possession. The parties submitted to the court a plan of the premises referred to on the trial, upon which the first parcel described in the declaration was marked C I, the second parcel was marked C 2, and the third parcel was marked C. The parties agreed upon a statement of facts substantially as follows.
Read the full summary
Ejectment for land in Putney. The plaintiff described in bis declaration three several parcels of land, of which he demanded the seisin and peaceable possession. The parties submitted to the court a plan of the premises referred to on the trial, upon which the first parcel described in the declaration was marked C I, the second parcel was marked C 2, and the third parcel was marked C. The parties agreed upon a statement of facts substantially as follows. The premises described in the declaration were part of a farm, of which, previous to May, 1843, Daniel Packer owned and possessed an…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J,
This is an action of ejectment to recover certain lands, described in the plaintiffs’ declaration, situate in Putney. The plaintiffs and the defendant Blanden set up conflicting titles to the premises, as derived from one Daniel Packer, under the levy of certain executions against him. It is agreed, that Packer owned and possessed an undivided half of certain premises, in fee, situate *320in Putney, in his own right; and the other half he held in the right of his wife, to whom they had been devised in fee. On the third day of May, 1842, Blanden,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Grace v. GraceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Pavy v. PavyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1951
- Rogers v. BradfordTexas Supreme Court · 1882
- Baldwin v. AldrichSupreme Court of Vermont · 1861
- Martin v. CollesterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1859