Tuttle v. Reynolds

1 Vt. 80
Supreme Court of Vermont·Decided January 15, 1828·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Turner, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. It is a clear principle of law that a tenant cannot dispute the tide of his landlord. The evidence offered admits that Reynolds went into the occupation of the land in question, as a tenant of Catlin. Nor is it competent for the defendant .to dispute the tittle of Catlin’s grantee. It is immaterial, as to him, whether Catlin and Tuttle had a legal tide or not. For his occupation of the land under Cat-[81] Un is an admission of tide, which he is forever precluded from retracting. After the transfer to Tuttle, the defendant should have attorned to him or surrendered the possession. And after refusitig to do either, and after disclaiming to hold under Cailin, notice to quit was unnecessary on the part of Catlin or his grantee. — Bul. N. P. 96. From these principles it results that the evidence should have been admitted. New trial granted.

Van JYess, for the plaintiff. Balley\ for tile defendant.

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

Tuttle v. Reynolds, 1 Vt. 80 (Vt. 1828).

1 Vt. 80 (Tuttle v. Reynolds) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Derrick v. Luddy
64 Vt. 462 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1892)
Appleton v. Ames
5 L.R.A. 206 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1889)
Dwine v. Brown
35 Ala. 596 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1860)
Ripley v. Yale
18 Vt. 220 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1846)
Greeno v. Munson
9 Vt. 37 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1837)