Comb's Lessee v. Comb

Delaware Court of Common Pleas

Comb's Lessee v. Comb

1 Del. Cas. 438, 1797 Del. LEXIS 41

DecidedMay 15, 1797

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Del. Cas. 438 (Comb's Lessee v. Comb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Delaware Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Comb's Lessee v. Comb, 1 Del. Cas. 438, 1797 Del. LEXIS 41 (Del. Super. Ct. 1797).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

As to the first ground of defense we have often ruled and are still of opinion that the plaintiff is not barred by length of time, if the land were vacant at the time of the grant. It must be taken that persons in possession of such land hold it in order to preserve the possession for the State. Besides, the qualified preference given by the Act of Assembly [2 Del.Laws 1162] to such possessors shows that the law did not consider mere possession as a title and expressly subjects the land to the grant of the State unless the person in possession conforms to the terms of the Act.

As to the second point relied on, we conceive that it is within the discretion of the jury from the time and circumstances of the case to presume a grant of the land. We do not say the jury are bound to presume a grant for the land, but that they may presume one if the time and circumstances satisfy them that a grant ever was made.

Jury gave a verdict for defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

As to the first ground of defense we have often ruled and are still of opinion that the plaintiff is not barred by length of time, if the land were vacant at the time of the grant. It must be taken that persons in possession of such land hold it in order to preserve the possession for the State. Besides, the qualified preference given by the Act of Assembly [2 Del.Laws 1162] to such possessors shows that the law did not consider mere possession as a title and expressly subjects the land to the grant of the State unless the person in possession conforms to the terms of the Act.

As to the second point relied on, we conceive that it is within the discretion of the jury from the time and circumstances of the case to presume a grant of the land. We do not say the jury are bound to presume a grant for the land, but that they may presume one if the time and circumstances satisfy them that a grant ever was made.

Jury gave a verdict for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Del. Cas. 438, 1797 Del. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/combs-lessee-v-comb-delctcompl-1797.