Harrison v. Shotwells

1 Mich. N.P. 53
CourtCircuit Court of the 36th Circuit of Michigan
DecidedOctober 15, 1869
StatusPublished

This text of 1 Mich. N.P. 53 (Harrison v. Shotwells) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 36th Circuit of Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harrison v. Shotwells, 1 Mich. N.P. 53 (Mich. Super. Ct. 1869).

Opinion

. Bkown, J.,

Instructed the jury, in relatiou to the question involved in this request, in substance, that if they should find that David Crittenden was dead, as claimed by the plaintiff, and that George F. Crittenden, plaintiff’s grantor, was his legitimate and only child, and surviving heir at law, the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case; and that in order to defeat his title, the delendant, claiming in opposition to the prior unrecorded deed, under a subsequent deed from the same grantor, must show affirmatively, priority of record, want of notice of such unrecorded deed, and the payment of a valuable consideration.

[55]*55.The recitals in a deed, of the payment of a valuable consideration, are evidence as between parties and privies to the deedi but not as between strangers, in such a case as this, where it is necessary that the defendant should show the payment of a valuable .consideration for the deed claiming priority of record. Such recitals are to be considered as mere admissions, and are not to be received as evidence against those who are not privies to the instrument containing them.

Verdict lor plaint iff.

A bill of exceptions has been settled, in this case.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Mich. N.P. 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-shotwells-micirct36-1869.