Polk v. Robertson

Circuit Court of Tennessee

Polk v. Robertson

19 F. Cas. 937, 1 Brunn. Coll. Cas. 103

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Tennessee

DecidedJune 15, 1809

StatusPublished

This text of 19 F. Cas. 937 (Polk v. Robertson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Polk v. Robertson, 19 F. Cas. 937, 1 Brunn. Coll. Cas. 103 (circttenn 1809).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Evidence of admissions ■can be received in questions of boundary, as well as in other cases, but they should be clear and unequivocal to have any effect It is always a suspicious kind of evidence, and the jury should be convinced that it was the intention of the party to admit a fact, being satisfied of its truth. In this case there does not appear to be a clear admission of the fact, but the jury will judge of this. Admissions of law, or what the law is, have no effect in a court of justice; they are never noticed. Admissions are evidence as to boundary. See 3 Johns. 223, 400; 2 Johns. 120; 2 Dall. 94; 4 Hen. & M. 194; 2 Hayw. (N. C.) 210, note; Hardin, 232; Camp. 367; 4 Johns. 143; 2 Gould, Esp. N. P. 34. But not evidence as to title. See 6 Johns. 19.

The whole question before the jury depends upon the identity of the survey, or boundaries of the plaintiff’s land. If the jury believe from the testimony they have heard, that this is the place surveyed for the plaintiff, and granted to him, they will find for him, otherwise for the defendant.*

Verdict for the plaintiff.

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

PER CURIAM.

Evidence of admissions ■can be received in questions of boundary, as well as in other cases, but they should be clear and unequivocal to have any effect It is always a suspicious kind of evidence, and the jury should be convinced that it was the intention of the party to admit a fact, being satisfied of its truth. In this case there does not appear to be a clear admission of the fact, but the jury will judge of this. Admissions of law, or what the law is, have no effect in a court of justice; they are never noticed. Admissions are evidence as to boundary. See 3 Johns. 223, 400; 2 Johns. 120; 2 Dall. 94; 4 Hen. & M. 194; 2 Hayw. (N. C.) 210, note; Hardin, 232; Camp. 367; 4 Johns. 143; 2 Gould, Esp. N. P. 34. But not evidence as to title. See 6 Johns. 19.

The whole question before the jury depends upon the identity of the survey, or boundaries of the plaintiff’s land. If the jury believe from the testimony they have heard, that this is the place surveyed for the plaintiff, and granted to him, they will find for him, otherwise for the defendant.*

Verdict for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F. Cas. 937, 1 Brunn. Coll. Cas. 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polk-v-robertson-circttenn-1809.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack