Sanger v. Craigue

10 Vt. 555
CourtSupreme Court of Vermont
DecidedMarch 15, 1838
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 10 Vt. 555 (Sanger v. Craigue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sanger v. Craigue, 10 Vt. 555 (Vt. 1838).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered.by

Williams, C. J.

From the records of the town it appears that Joseph Craigue, being the owner of lot No. 88, in the township of Troy, conveyed the east half of the same to the plaintiff by deed, dated the 25th of August, 1835. He had previously deeded the same to one Alexander Wright, under whom the defendant was in possession, but, by mistake of the town clerk, the deed, which was executed to Wright, and which was of a prior date to the deed executed to the plaintiff, was recorded as a deed of the west half. In the absence of any proof of notice to the plaintiff of the existence of the deed to Wright, other than what was contained in the record, the title of the plaintiff must prevail. He was only bound to notice the title, as it appeared of record, which was of the other half of the lot, and not the one conveyed to him. It is not stated in the case, or found, that either Alexander Wright or the defendant Janies Craigue, [556]*556who claims by deed from him, dated March, 1833, was in possession of the east half at the time the deed to the plaintiff was executed, so as to bring him within the principle established by the case of Rublee v. Mead, 2 Vt. 544. Nothing haore is tehown than that the plaintiff has a good title, as Appears by the town felefk’s records* This is not to be defeated by the deed from Joseph Craigueto Wright, which, as.it respects the land iff dispute, is unrecorded.

The judgment of the county court is, therefore, affirmed.

itEDFiELb, J., having presided in the county court, on the trial of this case, did not sit.

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

Related

Ely v. Hoida
226 P. 525 (Montana Supreme Court, 1924)
Neas v. Whitener-London Realty Co.
178 S.W. 390 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1915)
Shepard v. Murphy
26 Colo. 350 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1899)
Reynolds v. Haskins
68 Vt. 426 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1895)
Watkins v. Wilhoit
35 P. 646 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Weber v. Moss
21 S.W. 609 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1893)
Bailey v. Galpin
41 N.W. 1054 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1889)
Schweiss v. Woodruff
41 N.W. 511 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1889)
Carter v. Hawkins
62 Tex. 393 (Texas Supreme Court, 1884)
Mangold v. Barlow
61 Miss. 593 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1884)
Sinclair v. Slawson
6 N.W. 207 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1880)
Gilchrist v. Gough
63 Ind. 576 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1878)
Jones v. McNarrin
68 Me. 334 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1878)
Taylor v. Harrison
47 Tex. 454 (Texas Supreme Court, 1877)
Barnard v. Campau
29 Mich. 162 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1874)
Shove v. Larsen
22 Wis. 142 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1867)
Page v. Rogers
31 Cal. 293 (California Supreme Court, 1866)
Barney v. McCarty
15 Iowa 510 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1864)
Lessee of Jennings v. Wood
20 Ohio St. 261 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1851)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Vt. 555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanger-v-craigue-vt-1838.