Tuttle v. Reynolds
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of ejectment brought to recover the seizen and possession of a lot of land in Essex. At the trial before the County Court the plaintiff offered , evidence tending to prove that in die year 1817 or 1818, the lot in question was vacant, and was claimed by Guy Catlin ; and that the defendant applied to the said Catlin, for permission to enter upon and occupy the said lot under him ; which permission^ being granted by said Catlin, by parol, the defendant…
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment brought to recover the seizen and possession of a lot of land in Essex. At the trial before the County Court the plaintiff offered , evidence tending to prove that in die year 1817 or 1818, the lot in question was vacant, and was claimed by Guy Catlin ; and that the defendant applied to the said Catlin, for permission to enter upon and occupy the said lot under him ; which permission^ being granted by said Catlin, by parol, the defendant entered into possession accordingly, and had continued in possession up to that time ; but that previous to the commencement…
1Opinion of the CourtTurner, J.
It is a clear principle of law that a tenant cannot dispute the tide of his landlord. The evidence offered admits that Reynolds went into the occupation of the land in question, as a tenant of Catlin. Nor is it competent for the defendant .to dispute the tittle of Catlin’s grantee. It is immaterial, as to him, whether Catlin and Tuttle had a legal tide or not. For his occupation of the land under Cat-*81Un is an admission of tide, which he is forever precluded from retracting. After the transfer to Tuttle, the defendant should have attorned to him or surrendered the possession. And after…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Greeno v. MunsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1837
- Appleton v. AmesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Dwine v. BrownSupreme Court of Alabama · 1860
- Ripley v. YaleSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
- Derrick v. LuddySupreme Court of Vermont · 1892