This was an action of ejectment to recover the possession of premises described as lots ten, twelve and twenty-four in block five in the… Held: no error, on the ground above stated. Defendant’s answer, among other defences, alleged that lots ten and twelve were sold at auction, under and in pursuance of a decree in chancery by a master, and bid off by defendant, who paid the purchase-price and expenses; that defendant agreed with one Augustus Walters (under whom plaintiffs…
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1874-06-16
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1930
6 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.
¶2
All concur on the ground of error in rejecting evidence of former suit pending, and also hold the rejection of proof as to the delivery of deed to Walters error; disagreeing with opinion on this point.