Danforth v. Beattie
Supreme Court of Vermont
Action of ejectment, to recover the possession of 55 square rods of land, being part of lot No. 63 in the second division in Brunswick. Plea, the general issue. The plaintiff put in evidence the following record title : 1st. A judgment recovered before the Essex County Court, September term, 1865, in favor of said W. R. Danforth v. A. W. ‡ J. T. Moore, for $301.01 damages, and $18.50 costs.
Read the full summary
Action of ejectment, to recover the possession of 55 square rods of land, being part of lot No. 63 in the second division in Brunswick. Plea, the general issue. The plaintiff put in evidence the following record title : 1st. A judgment recovered before the Essex County Court, September term, 1865, in favor of said W. R. Danforth v. A. W. ‡ J. T. Moore, for $301.01 damages, and $18.50 costs. This judgment was recovered upon three promissory notes given by said A. W. & J. T. Moore to said Danforth, dated Dec. 16, 1857. The writ in said action was dated Oct. 28,1864, and was served on the 31st…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Peck, J.
The plaintiff’s counsel claims that even if the premises in question were the homestead of G. T. Moore, at the date of the mortgage of A. W. & J. T. Moore, to Webb, which was prior to the plaintiff’s attachment and levy against said Moores, the evidence offered to show that that mortgage was fraudulent as to the creditors of Moores, the mortgagors, ought to -have been admitted. This is claimed on the ground that as that mortgage coirtained other lands and tenements, it would be void for fraud as to so much as was not embraced in the homestead,…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Kennedy v. First National BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
- Thorp v. ThorpSupreme Court of Vermont · 1897
- Carhart v. HarshawWisconsin Supreme Court · 1878
- Farmers & Merchants Bank v. DaikerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1914
- Abbadessa v. TeguSupreme Court of Vermont · 1961
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.