Cloutman v. Bailey
Opinion
The defendant took a life estate in the land under the will. The rule in Shelley's ease, if it was ever adopted in this state, has been abolished so far as it applies to devises of real estate. G-. L., c. 193, s. 5.
The alleged deceit was, that the defendant represented that he was the owner in fee of the land on which the timber stood. The proof is, that both parties understood at the time of the eonveyance that the defendant owned only a life estate in the land. Not only no wilful deceit is shown, but the plaintiff was not deceived as to the defendant’s title. Hoitt v. Holcomb, 23 N. H. 535, 552; Page v. Parker, 40 N. H. 47, 69; Newell v. Horn, 45 N. H. 421.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
62 N.H. 44 (Cloutman v. Bailey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.