Lessee of Ewing v. Burnet case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
36
U.S. 41
CASE SYNOPSIS: Plaintiff, lessor of
defendant, sought review of a judgment from the United States Circuit
Court for the District of Ohio, which had ruled in favor of defendant
in plaintiff's action of ejectment. Both parties claimed title from
the original grantee. Plaintiff relied on an adverse possession of 21
years as constituting legal title.
FACTS: Plaintiff produced a deed for the premises older than that, which was given in evidence by defendant. On motion of defendant, the trial court instructed the jury that his actual possession of the lot, to protect his title under the statute of limitations, must have been 21 years before the commencement of this suit.
ANALYSIS:
The trial court was satisfied that there was nothing in evidence, or any fact which the jury could lawfully infer therefrom, which could in any way prevent plaintiff's recovery; if there was any evidence which conduced to prove any fact that could produce such effect, the court must have assumed such fact to have been proved. It was the exclusive province of the jury to decide what facts are proved by competent evidence. It was also their province to judge of the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight of their testimony. The evidence justified the jury in finding an entry by defendant on property as early as 1804 and that he claimed the exclusive right to it under color of title from that time until the suit was commenced. The trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury that the evidence was not sufficient to make out an adverse possession.
CONCLUSION: The trial court's judgment was affirmed.
FACTS: Plaintiff produced a deed for the premises older than that, which was given in evidence by defendant. On motion of defendant, the trial court instructed the jury that his actual possession of the lot, to protect his title under the statute of limitations, must have been 21 years before the commencement of this suit.
ANALYSIS:
The trial court was satisfied that there was nothing in evidence, or any fact which the jury could lawfully infer therefrom, which could in any way prevent plaintiff's recovery; if there was any evidence which conduced to prove any fact that could produce such effect, the court must have assumed such fact to have been proved. It was the exclusive province of the jury to decide what facts are proved by competent evidence. It was also their province to judge of the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight of their testimony. The evidence justified the jury in finding an entry by defendant on property as early as 1804 and that he claimed the exclusive right to it under color of title from that time until the suit was commenced. The trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury that the evidence was not sufficient to make out an adverse possession.
CONCLUSION: The trial court's judgment was affirmed.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment