Rowletts v. Daniel

4 Munf. 473, 18 Va. 473, 1815 Va. LEXIS 40
Supreme Court of Virginia·Decided November 2, 1815·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

the president pronounced the court’s opinion, “ that there is- no error in the several instructions given to the jury, as stated in the several bills of exceptions, except the last. The two deeds from Henry Daniel to Harlow Daniel, on which that instruction was given, the court is of opinion,- did not work a disseisin of the [483] said Henry Daniel, whose possession was the possession of Lockey Rowlett, nor convert the possession of Henry Daniel into an adversary possession, so as to deprive the lessors of the plaintiff, who claim under the said Lockey Rowlett, of this action ; and that the said judgment is erroneous.”

Judgment reversed ; verdict set aside ; and new trial directed, on which the last mentioned instruction is not to be given to the jury.

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

Rowletts v. Daniel, 4 Munf. 473, 18 Va. 473, 1815 Va. LEXIS 40 (Va. 1815).

4 Munf. 473 (Rowletts v. Daniel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Laing v. McClung
137 S.E. 744 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1927)
Carmichael v. Reed
86 S.E. 662 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1915)
Schaubuch v. Dillemuth
60 S.E. 745 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1908)
Blake v. O'Neal
61 S.E. 410 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1908)
Greer v. Mitchell
26 S.E. 302 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1896)
Van Gunden v. Virginia Coal & Iron Co.
52 F. 838 (Fourth Circuit, 1892)
Trammell v. Thurmond
17 Ark. 203 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1856)
Ben v. Peete
2 Va. 539 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1824)
Baker v. Fales
16 Mass. 147 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1819)
Badger v. Phinney
15 Mass. 359 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1819)
Lee v. Tapscott
2 Va. 276 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1796)