Galusha v. Sinclear
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of ejectment, to recover the one undivided fourth part of an acre of land, with a sawmill thereon. Plea, not guilty, and issue to the jury. On trial the plaintiff offered a deed from the said Joseph Sinclear to. Gideon O. Dixon ; to which the defendant objected ; because the acknowledgement was without date : but the court overruled the objection, and the deed was read.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment, to recover the one undivided fourth part of an acre of land, with a sawmill thereon. Plea, not guilty, and issue to the jury. On trial the plaintiff offered a deed from the said Joseph Sinclear to. Gideon O. Dixon ; to which the defendant objected ; because the acknowledgement was without date : but the court overruled the objection, and the deed was read. The plaintiff then offered the copy of a judgement, execution and levy, in his favor against the said Gideon O. Dixon ; to which the defendant objected, for the following reasons : because the levy was not…
1Opinion of the Court
Hutchinson, C. J.,
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the Court. — The decision of the county court was correct, in admitting the deed from the defendant to Dixon. The ac-knowledgement is in due form, except, that it is without a date as to the year. But the deed and acknowledgement are both regularly recorded. The deed bears date May 14, 1811. It was acknowledged May 14, without stating the year. It was received for record, and recorded May 29, 1811. Of course,all must have taken place in May of the same year, 1811. This must be good, especially,as the defendant sets up no claim…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Juzan v. ToulminSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
- Good v. CoombsTexas Supreme Court · 1866
- Midgley v. WalkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Eastman v. CurtisSupreme Court of Vermont · 1832
- Administrator of Barnard v. RussellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1847
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.