. Titles to real property acquired originally and by transfer inter vivos . -er, had, in the year 1784, settled upon the land in controversy, claim-ing it as his own, and had used and sold part thereof, that for twentyyears or upwards, John Shannon had been in habits of intimacy withhis brother Hugh Shannon, and was fully apprised of his claiming_andsellino said land ; the attorney for the defendant asked a witness wheth-er said Hugh Shannon had not latterly become insolvent, avowing hisobject to be to prove by that and other circumstances, a collusive de-struction of a writing evidencing a tr
. Titles to real property acquired originally and by transfer inter vivos . -er, had, in the year 1784, settled upon the land in controversy, claim-ing it as his own, and had used and sold part thereof, that for twentyyears or upwards, John Shannon had been in habits of intimacy withhis brother Hugh Shannon, and was fully apprised of his claiming_andsellino said land ; the attorney for the defendant asked a witness wheth-er said Hugh Shannon had not latterly become insolvent, avowing hisobject to be to prove by that and other circumstances, a collusive de-struction of a writing evidencing a transfer of said land, betwixt theplaintiff and Hugh Shannon; to the asking and answering of whichquestion, the plaintiff objected; but the court overruled the objectionand instructed the witness to answer the question, to which the plain-tiff excepted. Whether the court below erred in their decision of this point, is thefirst question which is necessary to be determined. * * * 12 The part of the opinion relating to the first question is omitted. 32 ORIGINAL TITLES (Part 1. The only other by the case is, whether the stat-ute of Hmitation was a bar to tlie plaintiffs recovery. It appears thatthere was a continual adverse possession for more than twenty years,but that Hugh Shannon, who first took the possession of the land incontroversy, before he^ had remained in possession twenty years, sur-rendered the possession to the defendants or those under whom theyheld, in pursuance of a decree entered upon an award giving them theland m virtue ot an adverse claim, and that they had not had the landin possession twenty years prior to the commencement of this suit. This circumstance, it is urged on the part of the plaintiff, preventsthe statute from operating as a bar to his recovery. But we cannotperceive any principle upon which it can have such an effect. Accord-ing to the literal import of the statute, the plaintiff could only enterupon the land within twenty 3^ears
Size: 1699px × 1470px
Photo credit: © Reading Room 2020 / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910, bookidt, booksubjectrealproperty
