Stretch v. Schenck

Decided November 15, 1864

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1864-11-15

<p>Specific Peefokjiance.—In an exchange of lands of equal value, when no money is to be paid, and possession is taken pursuant to the exchange, a delay of ten years is, per se, no bar to a suit for specific performance to compel execution of deeds.</p> <p>Title to Real Estate.—Title to real estate, originating in prescription, may be proved by parol.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1864-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1901

3 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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Where an exchange of lands is made, each *78piece being of equal value to the other, so that no money is to be paid, and possession of the several tracts is taken pursuant to the exchange, a delay of ten years to proceed to compel execution of deeds is not, per se, a bar to a suit for specific performance.

Asa Iglehart and Peter Mair, for appellant. James P. Blythe, for appellee.

¶2As an abstract proposition, it can not be laid down that title to real estate can not be proved by parol, because such title may originate in prescription.

¶3In this case no objection is taken in the brief of appellants to the instructions; no exception was taken below specifically to the form of the judgment; and the evidence in the cause was conflicting.

¶4The judgment below is affirmed with costs.

¶5Note.—A petition for rehearing was filed in this case' February 1, 1865, and overruled.