¶1The verdict was directed for the defendants upon the ground that the petitioners had failed to show any evidence of title. In this the Court of Common Pleas were clearly correct. The deeds purporting to convey the land to Jabez Dame, the testator, were the deeds of parties not shown to have had possession, title or power to convey. Jabez Dame was not shown to have had actual possession of the land, nor is there the slightest evidence that Timothy was in under him, or that he ever recognized his title in any form. He did not, so far as appears, claim under the devise, or ever admit that he was in under Daniel Dame, to whom the land was devised in trust for his benefit. There was nothing for the jury to consider. The verdict was, therefore, properly ordered, and must be certified by the Court of Common Pleas to this court.
20 N.H. 28
Dame v. Dame
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Decided January 15, 1849
Superior Court of New Hampshire · decided 1849-01-15
Petition eor Partition. Upon the trial of an issue sent by this court to the Court of Common Pleas, it appeared that the petitioners were the sons of the defendant, Timothy Dame, and grandsons of Jabez Dame, a copy of whose will, dated the 21st day of May, 1811, and proved on the 25th day of January, 1814, they exhibited in evidence. The will contained the following clauses: “ Item 5. I give my son Timothy ten dollars, to he paid soon after my decease.” “ Item 10.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1878
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1849-01-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →