Clark v. Johnson
Supreme Court of Connecticut
MOTION for a new trial. This was an action of disseisin, for a certain parcel of land in Ncn-town. The defendant pleaded the general is..-ue ; and the jury returned their verdict in his favour. On the trial before the Superior Court, it was agreed, that before, and until the Oth of September, 1799, one Oliver Ton-sey was well seised and possessed of the premises, and that the defendant was in the possession thereof, at the date of the plaintiff’s writ.
Read the full summary
MOTION for a new trial. This was an action of disseisin, for a certain parcel of land in Ncn-town. The defendant pleaded the general is..-ue ; and the jury returned their verdict in his favour. On the trial before the Superior Court, it was agreed, that before, and until the Oth of September, 1799, one Oliver Ton-sey was well seised and possessed of the premises, and that the defendant was in the possession thereof, at the date of the plaintiff’s writ. It was proved by the plaintiff, that on the 6th of September, 1799, Touscy, by deed, with c'ovenants of warranty and seisin, and absolute upon…
1Opinion of the Court
IjíGERSor.L, J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. So far as respects the question, whether it was proper to admit proof, that Oliva' Tousey, after he had made the conveyances claimed to he fraudulent, remained in possession of the land conveyed, and made conveyances of the same, in the manner stated in the motion, I am of opinion, that such proof was properly admitted. This point has been so often decided, and is, as 1 apprehend, so perfectly clear, that I shall spend no time to prove it.
Equally clear is it, also, as it strikes me, that the admission of Nathan Ferris to testify to the facts,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Cunningham v. KnightNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Field v. SnellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1849