Morrisette v. Boulevard Bridge Corp.

Fourth Circuit

Morrisette v. Boulevard Bridge Corp.

30 F.2d 290, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2389

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 14, 1929

DocketNo. 2770

StatusPublished

This text of 30 F.2d 290 (Morrisette v. Boulevard Bridge Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morrisette v. Boulevard Bridge Corp., 30 F.2d 290, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2389 (4th Cir. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action in ejectment. It appears from the face of the declaration that the land claimed by plaintiff is a part of the bed of the James river within the city of Richmond. Although it is not expressly described as the bed of the river, the description given clearly shows that this is what it is. Furthermore, plaintiff, under order of court, produced the grant to one Bernard Markham, winch was alleged in the declaration to describe the land, and also the survey upon which the grant was issued and which is referred to therein; and these clearly show that the land claimed is a part of the river bed. Upon these facts appearing, the District Court sustained a demurrer to the- declaration; and we think there can be no question that this ruling was correct. Old Dominion Iron & Nail Works v. C. & O. R. Co., 116 Va. 166, 81 S. E. 108; Grant v. C. & O. R. Co., 117 Va. 46, 84 S. E. 9; James River & Kanawha Power Co. v. Old Dominion Iron & Steel Corp., 138 Va. 461, 122 S. E. 344.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an action in ejectment. It appears from the face of the declaration that the land claimed by plaintiff is a part of the bed of the James river within the city of Richmond. Although it is not expressly described as the bed of the river, the description given clearly shows that this is what it is. Furthermore, plaintiff, under order of court, produced the grant to one Bernard Markham, winch was alleged in the declaration to describe the land, and also the survey upon which the grant was issued and which is referred to therein; and these clearly show that the land claimed is a part of the river bed. Upon these facts appearing, the District Court sustained a demurrer to the- declaration; and we think there can be no question that this ruling was correct. Old Dominion Iron & Nail Works v. C. & O. R. Co., 116 Va. 166, 81 S. E. 108; Grant v. C. & O. R. Co., 117 Va. 46, 84 S. E. 9; James River & Kanawha Power Co. v. Old Dominion Iron & Steel Corp., 138 Va. 461, 122 S. E. 344.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 F.2d 290, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrisette-v-boulevard-bridge-corp-ca4-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack