Summary

John McLean Greenleaf v. Birth — Opinion of the Court

It does not embrace any of the facts brought before the jury by the plaintiff, in relation to the contract with Stewart. This contract was introduced to show that in February 1795, the lot in dispute was sold to Stewart, and was consequently within the exception of 'all such squares, lots, lands or tenements, as were either conveyed, or sold, or agreed to be conveyed,' which was contained in the deed from the plaintiff to Morris and Nicholson, of the 13th of May 1796.
Source: Wikisource

John McLean Greenleaf v. Birth — Opinion of the Court

When this case was before the court on the former writ of error, the defendant insisted that the deed from the plaintiff to Nicholson and Morris showed an outstanding title; the court said, 'the defendant sets up no title in himself, but seeks to maintain his possession as a mere intruder, by setting up a title in third persons with whom he has no privity.
Source: Wikisource

John McLean Greenleaf v. Birth — Opinion of the Court

The following instrument to Shaw and Birth:-'We agree to convey to John Shaw and James Birth, their heirs or assigns, the lots number 16 and 17, in square number 75 in the city of Washington, assuring it against our heirs, and all persons claiming under us, on their paying two notes of this date, each for 450 dollars and 2 cents, bearing interest from and since the 1st day of September last past-one payable the 1st of September next, and the other the 1st of September 1801.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature