Brooks v. Chaplin

• Decision Date: 01 March 1831
• Citation: 3 Vt. 281
• Parties: JOHN BROOKS v. RICHARD CHAPLIN
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

3 Vt. 281

JOHN BROOKS v. RICHARD CHAPLIN

Supreme Court of Vermont, Orleans

March, 1831

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 Granger 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 by Farrington, under the power aforesaid, to the defendant dated October 14th, 1828. It was proved that in June, 1828 the defendant entered and commenced improvements upon said lot, which was then wild, and had continued his possession of the same ever since. The defendant objected at the trial to the reading of said deed from Phelps to the Smiths, because the acknowledgement did not show in what state it was taken. It appeared by inspection of the deed, that the grantor described himself as resident of Suffield, in the county of Hartford, and state of Connecticut. The acknowledgement was taken two days after the date of the deed, and commenced as follows: " Hartford county, ss. April 24th, 1797. Then personally appeared Oliver Phelps," & c. The defendant also objected to the plaintiffs' right of recovery without showing a title in Phelps; inasmuch as his possession on the lot was commenced before he received his deed from Farrington, and as no evidence was given of his having originally entered under the heirs of Phelps. These objections were overruled in the county court, and a verdict and judgement having passed against the defendant, he filed exceptions, which were reserved for a hearing before this Court according to the statute.

Redfield for plaintiff.

J. Mattocks, for defendant.

OPINION

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 inoperative, 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...