Rogers v. Moore
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of ejectment; tried at Norwich, March term, 1836, before Huntington, J. The demanded premises were formerly the property of James Rogers, deceased, who, by his last will, duly proved and established, devised the same to his son, Solomon Rogers, as follows : “ To be to him during his natural life ; and at his decease, my will is, that the same shall go to the issue of his body, lawfully begotten, or to be begotten, to be equally divided among them, to be to…
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment; tried at Norwich, March term, 1836, before Huntington, J. The demanded premises were formerly the property of James Rogers, deceased, who, by his last will, duly proved and established, devised the same to his son, Solomon Rogers, as follows : “ To be to him during his natural life ; and at his decease, my will is, that the same shall go to the issue of his body, lawfully begotten, or to be begotten, to be equally divided among them, to be to them, their heirs and assigns forever: or, if he leave no issue, my will is, that the same shall go to, and be equally…
1Opinion of the CourtHuntington, J.
Upon the facts agreed, for the purpose of the trial of this cause at the circuit, the jury were instructed, that the plaintiff had a title to the demanded premises, as tenant in common with the defendant, and had a right to recover, if she had been, by him, ousted and kept out of possession, which was submitted to them upon the evidence offered of an actual ouster. The general question, before this court, is upon the propriety of this instruction.
The opinion we entertain upon the principal question arising on this record, renders it unnecessary to consider several points which have been…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Martin v. SterlingConnecticut Superior Court · 1790
3Cited by1 opinion
- Carpenter v. DenoonOhio Supreme Court · 1876