Brooks v. Chaplin
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was ejectment for a lot of land in Charleston. The plaintiff gave in evidence a deed of the premises demanded from Oliver Phelps to Noah Smith and Israel Smith, dated April 22d, 1797, and a deed of the same from said Smiths to himself; both of which deeds had been on record for many years.
Read the full summary
This was ejectment for a lot of land in Charleston. The plaintiff gave in evidence a deed of the premises demanded from Oliver Phelps to Noah Smith and Israel Smith, dated April 22d, 1797, and a deed of the same from said Smiths to himself; both of which deeds had been on record for many years. He also read in evidence a power of attorney executed by Francis Gran-ger and others, heirs at law of said Phelps who had deceased, to one Farrington, dated September 1st, 1828, duly authorizing him to sell and convey any of their lands in Vermont, and a quit-claim deed of the lot in question executed…
1Opinion of the Court
And now after argument the opinion of the Court was pronounced by
Royce, J.
The first question is, whether the deed from Oliver Phelps to Noah and Israel Smith was legally acknowledged. Without this requisite it would be inóperativer as against the defendant, and would moreover appear to have passed in evidence without any proof of its-execution. It is not indispensable that the place of taking should fully appear from the acknowledgement itself, provided it can be discovered with sufficient certainty by inspection of the whole instrument. And if we can infer, beyond any reasonable doubt, that…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Touchard v. CrowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- Austin v. Rutland RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1873
- Oney v. ClendeninWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1886
- Kline v. MuellerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- Hiles v. La FleshWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.