Dunlap v. Glidden

31 Me. 510
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedJuly 1, 1850
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 31 Me. 510 (Dunlap v. Glidden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dunlap v. Glidden, 31 Me. 510 (Me. 1850).

Opinion

Tenney, J., orally.

Defendants offered to read a paper, as an original deed. Its execution was denied, and was not proved. They also proposed to prove a conveyance, by parol evidence of the contents of a lost deed, the execution of which was not proved. Before the former deed could be read, or the evidence of the contents of the other could be received, it was necessary to prove that the papers were deeds. There was no such proof. The defendants claim under these deeds. Suppose them both to have been admitted, they would not show the defendants to be owners. Neither would they establish [512]*512the justification set up under Brann and Harriman. No one can justify under another’s title, except by showing that he does the acts by his authority. No such authorization was proved. Judgment on the default.

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

Related

Omaha & Grant Smelting & Refining Co. v. Tabor
13 Colo. 41 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1889)
Wells v. Jackson Iron Manufacturing Co.
48 N.H. 491 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1869)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 Me. 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunlap-v-glidden-me-1850.