Wilkinson v. Caughey

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Wilkinson v. Caughey

1 D.C. 195

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 1, 1933

DocketLaw No. 80179

StatusPublished

This text of 1 D.C. 195 (Wilkinson v. Caughey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilkinson v. Caughey, 1 D.C. 195 (D.C. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

BAILEY, J.

The evidence does not show, in my opinion, that there was any mutual mistake in the deeds from Alice Virginia Winship to the predecessors in title of the plaintiff and defendant; that is, between the grantors and the grantees in those deeds. In fact the testimony shows the contrary, certainly as to the parties in the deed from Winship to the plaintiff’s predecessor in title.

I can find nothing that would justify the court in making any change in these deeds, and think that the plaintiff is entitled to the property called for in his deed.

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

OPINION

BAILEY, J.

The evidence does not show, in my opinion, that there was any mutual mistake in the deeds from Alice Virginia Winship to the predecessors in title of the plaintiff and defendant; that is, between the grantors and the grantees in those deeds. In fact the testimony shows the contrary, certainly as to the parties in the deed from Winship to the plaintiff’s predecessor in title.

I can find nothing that would justify the court in making any change in these deeds, and think that the plaintiff is entitled to the property called for in his deed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 D.C. 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkinson-v-caughey-dc-1933.