Trespass quare clausum fregit. The facts of the case sufficiently appear Horn the opinion. The requests for rulings, as they were not considered by the court, are not stated.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Heard on petition of defendant for a new trial, and new… · Decided 1900-10-24
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 2005
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1
(1)
The defendant petitions for a new trial on the ground of verdict against the evidence and of exceptions to rulings of the court.
¶2
The -action being trespass
quare
clausum, the only issues were the possession of the plaintiff and the acts of trespass by the defendant. On these points the verdict is sustained by the evidence.
¶3
The exceptions presented by the defendant relate to the question whether the title to the -real estate, upon a judicial sale, vested from the sale, by relation, upon the delivery of the deed and payment of. purchase-money after the trespass alleged.
¶4
(2)
The question of title in such an action is only put in issue upon the setting up of title in the defendant. A plea of title in the defendant was filed, but was withdrawn on the day of the trial; whereupon the plaintiff was only bound to prove possession.
*239
Herbert Almy,
for plaintiff.
Bassett & Mitchell,
for defendant.
¶5
The requests for rulings as to a title by relation were therefore immaterial.
¶6
Petition for new trial denied, and case remitted.
