Miller's Lessee v. Holt
Tennessee Supreme Court
Ejectment, plea not guilty. The Lessor of the plaintiff derived his tide from a grant issued to Thomas King for 640 acres of land, dated the 8th of April 1794, and registered the 4th of April, 1800. A deed from King to Miller dated February 11th, 1802, was produced, and also another grant for 640 acres, dated April the 30th, 1803. No. 315, upon an entry made in John Armstrong's office on the 9th of April, 1784, but the warrant upon this entry was removed and surveyed at the…
Read the full summary
Ejectment, plea not guilty. The Lessor of the plaintiff derived his tide from a grant issued to Thomas King for 640 acres of land, dated the 8th of April 1794, and registered the 4th of April, 1800. A deed from King to Miller dated February 11th, 1802, was produced, and also another grant for 640 acres, dated April the 30th, 1803. No. 315, upon an entry made in John Armstrong's office on the 9th of April, 1784, but the warrant upon this entry was removed and surveyed at the place now in contest. objected to the reading of the grant to the lessor of the plaintiff, dated in April, 1803. being…
1Per curiam
The first question to be determined is whether the grant as it originally stood, before amendment should be read.
The English authorities which have been referred to, are surely founded in reason ; there is however no doubt but that these authorities pre-suppose the idea of mala fides in the alteration by the party himself.
The common law has wisely determined not to look to what effect an alteration by the person interested might have on the meaning of a contract. To preserve the inviolability of written contracts, it will not permit the impious touch of fraud, without destruction. By no…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Polk's Lessee v. WendellSupreme Court of the United States · 1820
- Trammell v. ThurmondSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1856