Broughton v. Howe
Supreme Court of Vermont
insisted, 1. That the plaintiff derived no title to any lands by the deed of Jesse Howe, that deed describing, by metes and bounds, a portion only of the fifty acres of which Obed, Jesse and David Howe were tenants in common.
Read the full summary
insisted, 1. That the plaintiff derived no title to any lands by the deed of Jesse Howe, that deed describing, by metes and bounds, a portion only of the fifty acres of which Obed, Jesse and David Howe were tenants in common. This deed cannot be said to convey all Jesse’s right and title to two undivided third parts of the fifty acres., for the same reason; that is, it is by metes and bounds, and does not affect the other third part, nor hinder that part from being set off to Jesse by partition. 2. There was no division into severalty, until done by order of the court of probate, April 17,…
1Opinion of the Court
*267The opinion of the court was pronounced bv
Williams, Chan.
— This case comes before us on the bill and answer. The bill sets forth, that Joshua Howe made his will, devising to his son David fifty acres of land during his life, and the remainder to the three sons of David) to wit: Jesse-, Ob.ed, and David, the defendant. The defendant, Phebe Howe, is mother of the defendant, David, and relict of David the son of Joshua. David the elder died in January, 1814. Jesse and Obed were then of age, and David a minor. These facts are admitted by the answer. The bill then charges, that soon after the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Lee v. FollensbySupreme Court of Vermont · 1909
- Holbrook v. BowmanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1882
- Probate Court ex rel. Hutchins v. GleedSupreme Court of Vermont · 1861
- Esterbrook v. SavageNew York Supreme Court · 1880