Brown v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 01 January 1818 |
| Citation | 4 L. Ed. 432,16 U.S. 449,3 Wheat 449 |
| Parties | <P><B><CENTER> BROWN</CENTER></B></P> <P><B><CENTER>v.</CENTER></B></P> <P><B><CENTER>JACKSON.</CENTER></B></P> |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
BROWN
v.
JACKSON.
ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Kentucky.
This was an action of ejectment, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, to recover the possession of certain lands in the state of Kentucky. To support his action, the plaintiff below showed the following title: a patent to Alexander Skinner; the will of Alexander Skinner, devising all his estate to Henry Lee; and a deed from Henry Lee to Adam Craig, conveying the tract of land in controversy specifically by metes and bounds, describing himself as devisee of Skinner; with a regular deduction of title from Craig to the plaintiff. The deed from Lee to Craig was dated the 23d of December, 1790; attested by three witnesses; acknowledged by the grantor on the 15th of December, 1795, before two justices of the peace in Virginia, and recorded in the court of appeals in Kentucky, on the 26th of July, 1796. The execution of this deed was proved by one of the subscribing witnesses. The defendant below produced in evidence a deed from Henry Lee to Henry Banks, dated the 5th of May, 1795, acknowledged before the mayor of Richmond, Virginia, on the 13th of May, 1795, and recorded in the court of appeals of Kentucky, on the 11th of July, 1796, granting 'all the right, title, and claim which he the said Alexander Skinner had, and all the right, title, and interest which the said Lee holds as legatee and representative to the said Alexander Skinner, deceased, of all land, lying and being within the state of Kentucky, which cannot at this time be particularly described, whether they be by deed, patent, mortgage, survey, location, contract or otherwise,' with a covenant of warranty against all persons claiming under Lee, his heirs and assigns.
Upon this testimony the defendant's counsel moved the court to instruct the jury, that by virtue of the deed aforesaid, from Lee to Banks, first acknowledged and first recorded, the legal title was vested in the said Banks to the land in question; that the deed under which the plaintiff claimed was not operative and valid against the deed to Banks, and that the said deed to Banks showed such a legal title out of the plaintiff as that he could not maintain his action. The question of fact, whether the deed of Lee to Craig was duly executed on the day it bears date was left by the court to the jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, upon the question of law arising in the cause. Judgment was thereupon rendered for the plaintiff by the court below, and the cause was brought to this court by writ of error.
March 3d.
The cause was argued by Mr. Talbot, for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Swann, for the defendant in error.
March 7th.
In this case the question of fact, whether the deed of Henry Lee to Adam Craig was duly executed on the day it bears date, was left by the court to the jury, and upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dunfee v. Childs
... ... effectual to call for a different decree. Machine Co. v ... Dunbar, 32 W.Va. 335, 9 S.E. 237; Brown v ... Nutter, 54 W.Va. 82, 46 S.E. 375. This is a second ... reason why that new matter is not effective to have called ... for a reversal of ... 426, 37 L.Ed. 350. The ... same doctrine is held in U.S. v. Land Co., 148 U.S ... 31, 13 S.Ct. 458, 37 L.Ed. 354, and Brown v. Jackson, 3 ... Wheat. 451, 4 L.Ed. 432, as shown in the opinion filed ... by me in Ellison v. Torpin, 44 W.Va. 435, 30 S.E ... 183. The Supreme Court ... ...
-
Dunfee v. Childs
...Ed. 350. The same doctrine is held in U. S. v. Land Co., 148 U. S. 31, 13 Sup. Ct 458. 37 L. Ed. 354, and Brown v. Jackson, 3 Wheat. 451, 4 L. Ed. 432, as shown in the opinion filed by me in Ellison v. Torpin, 44 W. Va. 435, 30 S. E. 183. The Supreme Court of the United States, as there sta......
-
Boynton v. Haggart
... ... nothing, and the purchasers took nothing thereby. In support ... of this contention they cite Brown v. Jackson, 3 ... Wheat, 449, 4 L.Ed. 432. That was the first of a long ... line of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in which it ... held ... ...
-
Coble v. Barringer
...therein at the time of the conveyance; but it passes no estate which is not then possessed by the party. Brown v. Jackson, 3 Wheat. 452 [4 L. Ed. 432]." The case of Allen v. Holton, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 458, strongly supports the same view. It was there held that: "In the case of a deed conveyi......