Lessee of Powell v. Harman

27 U.S. 241, 7 L. Ed. 411, 2 Pet. 241, 1829 U.S. LEXIS 402
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 18, 1829
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 27 U.S. 241 (Lessee of Powell v. Harman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lessee of Powell v. Harman, 27 U.S. 241, 7 L. Ed. 411, 2 Pet. 241, 1829 U.S. LEXIS 402 (1829).

Opinion

Mr Chief Justice Mahshall.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question now. referred to this Court differs from that which >was decided in Patton’s lessee vs. Easton, 1 Wheat. *242 476, in this, that the defendant who sets up a possessidn of s^Vjen years in bar of the plaintiff’s title, endeavours to connect'himself with a grant. The sale and conveyance however, by which this connexion is to be formed, are admitted to be void. The conveyance being made by a person having no authority to make it, is of no validity, and cannot connéct the purchaser with the original grant. We are therefore of opinion that the law is for the plaintiff and that this be certified as the opinipn of this Court.

This cause came on to be heard on a certificate of division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court of the United States for the district-of west Tennessee, ánd on the questions and points on which the said judges of that court were divided in opinion/and which have been certified to this Court; and was argued by counsel: on consideration whereof, this Court is of opinion, that under the statute of limitations of Tennessee, of seventeen hundred and ninety seven, a possession of seven years is a protection only when held under a grant or under valid rhesne conveyafices; dr a paper title, which are legally or equitably connected with a grqnt; : and that a void deed' is not such a conveyance, as that a possession Under it will be protected under the statute of limitations ; all which is directed and ordered to be certified, to the said circuit court of the United States, for the seventh circuit and district of west Tennessee.

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

Related

Soares v. City of San Diego
S.D. California, 2025
Horton II v. Gittere
D. Nevada, 2023
Anigbogu v. Mayorkas
N.D. California, 2023
(PC) Johnson v. Lizarraga
E.D. California, 2022
(PC) Green v. Batchelor
E.D. California, 2022
Csech v. Dzurenda
D. Nevada, 2021
Quinette v. Pullman Co.
229 F. 333 (Eighth Circuit, 1916)
Robinson v. Lowe
40 S.E. 454 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1901)
Balkam v. Woodstock Iron Co.
154 U.S. 177 (Supreme Court, 1894)
Lucas v. Byrne
35 Md. 485 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1872)
Gelpcke v. Dubuque
68 U.S. 175 (Supreme Court, 1864)
Gelpcke v. City of Dubuque
1 U.S. 175 (Supreme Court, 1863)
Selman v. Wolfe
27 Tex. 68 (Texas Supreme Court, 1863)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 U.S. 241, 7 L. Ed. 411, 2 Pet. 241, 1829 U.S. LEXIS 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lessee-of-powell-v-harman-scotus-1829.