Peery's Lessee v. Burton

Supreme Court of Delaware

Peery's Lessee v. Burton

1 Del. Cas. 28

DecidedOctober 15, 1794

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Del. Cas. 28 (Peery's Lessee v. Burton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peery's Lessee v. Burton, 1 Del. Cas. 28 (Del. 1794).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam. Read, C. J.

Duller in his Nisi Prius is to be considered as having collected the law upon the subject. I take up the law as he did then; I know of no alteration. Twenty years possession is a title. Here was evidence of possession which related to an early period. I wished to know if there was any objection to plaintiff’s claim of the possession. We think there is a claim of the possession that neither party can claim, but the question is if the former possession can be tacked to the latter. I think not. And that therefore plaintiff has given no evidence of a twenty years’ possession. There is nothing upon the paroi evidence • that the jury can find. Supposing the fact to be admitted, there remains nothing for the jury to exercise their special knowledge upon. Therefore I think notwithstanding the paroi evidence the defendant may properly demur, for there is [30]*30■no such doubt upon the paroi evidence as to prevent the defendant to demur.

Conditional verdict taken, and jury discharged.

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

Per Curiam. Read, C. J.

Duller in his Nisi Prius is to be considered as having collected the law upon the subject. I take up the law as he did then; I know of no alteration. Twenty years possession is a title. Here was evidence of possession which related to an early period. I wished to know if there was any objection to plaintiff’s claim of the possession. We think there is a claim of the possession that neither party can claim, but the question is if the former possession can be tacked to the latter. I think not. And that therefore plaintiff has given no evidence of a twenty years’ possession. There is nothing upon the paroi evidence • that the jury can find. Supposing the fact to be admitted, there remains nothing for the jury to exercise their special knowledge upon. Therefore I think notwithstanding the paroi evidence the defendant may properly demur, for there is [30]*30■no such doubt upon the paroi evidence as to prevent the defendant to demur.

Conditional verdict taken, and jury discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Del. Cas. 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peerys-lessee-v-burton-del-1794.