Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
  • WHITESIDE, for the plaintiff, insisted that as a deed from the defendant Wilson to one Miller recited this power of attorney, it ought to be taken as true against Wilson, under whom the plaintiff claimed, though it is objected that the plaintiff must recover by the strength of his own title, and not by the weakness of his adversaries. This principle cannot obtain here. It has been decided, that, in ejectment, the purchaser at a sheriff's sale against the person as whose property the land was sold is not under the necessity of going further back in deraigning his title than the sheriff's deed to him. The presumption is that the land has been granted, and of this opinion was CAMPBELL, EMMERSON, JJ., and OVERTON, J., dubitatur, but was inclined to think there was the same necessity for showing title in this case on the part of the plaintiff as in any other. See 2 Bay, 141; 3 Binn. 179. Vide 3 Caines, 188. Verdict for the plaintiff.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
  • WHITESIDE, for the plaintiff, insisted that as a deed from the defendant Wilson to one Miller recited this power of attorney, it ought to be taken as true against Wilson, under whom the plaintiff claimed, though it is objected that the plaintiff must recover by the strength of his own title, and not by the weakness of his adversaries. This principle cannot obtain here. It has been decided, that, in ejectment, the purchaser at a sheriff's sale against the person as whose property the land was sold is not under the necessity of going further back in deraigning his title than the sheriff's deed to him. The presumption is that the land has been granted, and of this opinion was CAMPBELL, EMMERSON, JJ., and OVERTON, J., dubitatur, but was inclined to think there was the same necessity for showing title in this case on the part of the plaintiff as in any other. See 2 Bay, 141; 3 Binn. 179. Vide 3 Caines, 188. Verdict for the plaintiff.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

TILLERY'S LESSEE v. WILSON.

In ejectment, by the purchaser of land sold under execution against the defendant, the plaintiff in showing his title need go no further back than the sheriff's deed to him. [See Kimbrough v. Benton, 3 Hum. 130, citing and commenting on this case. And see Fine's Lessee v. Pitner, infra, 300, where this case is cited.]

The land had been sold at sheriff's sale under a judgment against the defendant, and the lessor of the plaintiff became the purchaser. The judgment and execution were shown, and among other title papers, in order to show a title in Wilson, a deed from Nicholson Co., by JOHN M. CARRICK, attorney-in-fact.

Upon producing the power of attorney, which was dated the 9th of March, 1797, and executed in the presence of Matthew Clarkson, Mayor of Philadelphia, there was no seal of office, nor any other authentication, attached to it.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

TILLERY'S LESSEE v. WILSON
(Jan 1, 1807)