Reports of Cases Determined in the Appeal and Chancery Divisions and Selected Cases in the King's Bench and at Chambers of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick; With Tables of the Names of Cases Decided and Names of the Cases Cited Volume 5

Reports of Cases Determined in the Appeal and Chancery Divisions and Selected Cases in the King's Bench and at Chambers of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick; With Tables of the Names of Cases Decided and Names of the Cases Cited Volume 5

List price: US$22.39

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1894 edition. Excerpt: ... trespass to themrealtv onlv ' in order to rec"91' the plaintiff must charge that th, e defendant broke and entered his close, and cut and carried away his grass: it is one continuous act, and the plaintiff cannot spilt it up; otherwise the title to land might be tried in any count-Y' If 51 PRPTY goes on land and carries av.-'a.l' hay already cut, then the plaintifl may recover on the "S. portavit count, without anv proof of title to the 1111111 from which the 11115' was talten. 1847. Moan: agaimt L!-Inn. Cur. adv. vult 15 Bing. 183. CHIPMAN, C.J., now delivered the judgment of the Court. Whatever may have been our opinion of the luateriality of alterations in the deed from O'Neal to the plaintifi, and the propriety of 'admitting such deed in evidence without any explanation of the alterations, we think that question does not arise from the course which was ultimately taken at the trial. The case went to, the jury solely on the asportavit count The plaintiffs title to the hay, which had been taken away by the defendant, was perfect-as against a wrong doer, by the mere possession of the chattel, without any title to the land from which it was cut. To make out-a defence to such prima facie case, the onus lay on the defendant to shew that the land on which the hay was cut was within the title conveyed to him (the defendant) by O'Neal's deed conveying sixty acres of lot No. 32. It is clear on the evidence that if Barnes' line is not the binding boundary of the lot, such sixty acres would not include the locus in quo; and admitting the validity of that line, there was no evidence to shew that the locus in quo would be included. This was a point distinctly submitted to the jury, and had...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 222 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 12mm | 404g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 123687160X
  • 9781236871602