Tapscott v. Lessee of Cobbs case brief summary
52 Va. (11 Gratt.) 172 (1854)
CASE FACTS
Defendant who took possession of allegedly vacant premises appealed from a judgment for plaintiff heirs in their action for ejectment. Defendant contended that plaintiffs had no proof of their possession of the land at the time of his entry. Plaintiffs claimed that defendant had no proof that they were not in possession, as their devisor died in possession of the premises. Plaintiffs also claimed there was no proof the premises were vacant at the time of defendant's entry. Defendant contended that a surveyor's certificate was proof of his possession.
DISCUSSION
The appellate court affirmed the judgment because the surveyor's certificate established that defendant was not in possession for the statutory period required to take under adverse possession, and defendant was therefore merely an intruder because the law presumed an heir was in possession.
CONCLUSION
The judgment for plaintiffs was affirmed because defendant was not in possession long enough to take under adverse possession; therefore, he was merely an intruder since the law presumed an heir was in possession.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Property Law
52 Va. (11 Gratt.) 172 (1854)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant who took possession of
allegedly vacant premises appealed from an order of the lower court
(Virginia), granting judgment in favor of plaintiff heirs in their
action for ejectment of defendant.CASE FACTS
Defendant who took possession of allegedly vacant premises appealed from a judgment for plaintiff heirs in their action for ejectment. Defendant contended that plaintiffs had no proof of their possession of the land at the time of his entry. Plaintiffs claimed that defendant had no proof that they were not in possession, as their devisor died in possession of the premises. Plaintiffs also claimed there was no proof the premises were vacant at the time of defendant's entry. Defendant contended that a surveyor's certificate was proof of his possession.
DISCUSSION
The appellate court affirmed the judgment because the surveyor's certificate established that defendant was not in possession for the statutory period required to take under adverse possession, and defendant was therefore merely an intruder because the law presumed an heir was in possession.
CONCLUSION
The judgment for plaintiffs was affirmed because defendant was not in possession long enough to take under adverse possession; therefore, he was merely an intruder since the law presumed an heir was in possession.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Property Law
No comments:
Post a Comment