Gibson v. Brockway
Superior Court of New Hampshire
This was a plea of land. The demanded premises were • described as being part of lot No. one, in the first range and second division of lots in Washington, and were particularly set out by metes and bounds. The plea was mil disseizin, which was joined.
Read the full summary
This was a plea of land. The demanded premises were • described as being part of lot No. one, in the first range and second division of lots in Washington, and were particularly set out by metes and bounds. The plea was mil disseizin, which was joined. It was admitted that Joseph Bailey was the original owner of the premises described in the plaintiff's writ, and that there was a dam, a corn-mill and a saw-mill on the premises at that time. . . The plaintiff then offered a deed from Joseph Bailey to Thaddeus Graves, dated May 25, 1802, conveying “A ce& ‘ tain tenement, to wit. : one half of a…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Up ham, J.
An exception was taken on trial, that there was no evidence of a disseizin by the defendant; but the general issue which is plead in this case is a denial of record of the plaintiff’s right to recover any part or parcel of the premises, so that the pleadings are fatal to this exception.
The only question to be determined in the case, is whether the deed under which the plaintiff claims, passes the buildings merely, or the land on which the same were situated, with such adjoining land as may be essential for their use and improvement.
Conveyances…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Krouser v. County of San BernardinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Dunklee v. Wilton RailroadSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1852
- Cocheco Manufacturing Co. v. WhittierSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1839