Andrews v. Davison
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Covenant. The declaration set forth a breach of the covenant against incumbrances, in a deed of the defendant to the plaintiff, of lot No. 36, in the second division in Northumberland. The deed was dated December 8, 1835. The breach assigned was the ownership of one James Gilchrist, at the date of the deed, of all the pine timber on the lot, and of his right to cut and carry away the same.
Read the full summary
Covenant. The declaration set forth a breach of the covenant against incumbrances, in a deed of the defendant to the plaintiff, of lot No. 36, in the second division in Northumberland. The deed was dated December 8, 1835. The breach assigned was the ownership of one James Gilchrist, at the date of the deed, of all the pine timber on the lot, and of his right to cut and carry away the same. Issue was joined upon the alleged ownership of Gilchrist, and a verdict returned for the plaintiff. To show title and sustain the issue, the plaintiff introduced the original deed from the defendant to…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
The deed from Gilchrist to "Wallace was in the chain of title under which the plaintiff derived his title, and if he had been tracing title in support of his *415action, the copy would have been admissible, notwithstanding it might have shown exceptions and reservations. It is equally admissible here, therefore, as either of the other copies, and the question is, whether an office-copy of a deed is admissible in evidence, without an attempt to prove the original, for any purpose except to trace and support a title to the party producing it? We are of opinion that the rule allowing a copy to be…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mitchell v. WarnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1825
- Rickert v. SynderNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Loomis v. BedelSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1840
- Williams v. WetherbeeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1827
- Pollard v. MelvinSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1840
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Fletcher v. ChamberlinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881