Peter Vivian Daniel

Name: Wright v. Mattison — Opinion of the Court
Author: Peter Vivian Daniel

Wright v. Mattison — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Wright v. Mattison — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Peter Vivian Daniel. It explores elements such as defendant, title and deed.

Quotes from Wright v. Mattison — Opinion of the Court (Peter Vivian Daniel)

Peter Vivian Daniel, Wright v. Mattison — Opinion of the Court

“ What is color of title is matter of law, and when the facts exhibiting the title are shown, the court will determine whether they amount to color of title. But good faith in the party in claiming under such color, is purely a question of fact, to be found and settled as other facts in the cause. We can entertain no doubt in this case that the auditor's deed to the purchaser at the tax sale is color of title in Woodward, in the true intent and meaning of the statute, and without regard to its intrinsic worth as a title. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Peter Vivian Daniel, Wright v. Mattison — Opinion of the Court

“ We deem it unnecessary to examine in detail, the numerous decisions adduced in the argument for the plaintiff in error, to define and establish the meaning of the phrase, 'color of title.' The courts have concurred, it is believed, without an exception, in defining 'color of title' to be that which in appearance is title, but which in reality is no title. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Peter Vivian Daniel, Wright v. Mattison — Opinion of the Court

“ We hold, that in assuming to decide upon the question of good faith on the part of the defendant, the court exerted an authority not legitimately belonging to it; a power exclusively appertaining to the jury. We further hold, that it was error in the court to decide as it did upon the prayer of the plaintiff in the ejectment, and by its qualification annexed to the fifth prayer of the defendant, that the deed from the auditor of the 10th of January, 1833, was not such an instrument as could be adduced in evidence under the statute of 1839, in order to show color of title. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Peter Vivian Daniel, Wright v. Mattison — Opinion of the Court

“ Hence color of title, even under a void and worthless deed, has always been received as evidence that the person in possession claims adversely to all the world.' And again, in the same case, it is said, in order to entitle the defendant to set up the bar of the statute after five years adverse possession, he had only to show that he and those under whom he claimed held under a deed from a collector of the revenue of lands sold for the non-payment of taxes ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Peter Vivian Daniel, Wright v. Mattison — Opinion of the Court

“ By the statute of 1839 it is enacted, 'That, hereafter, every person in the actual possession of lands or tenements, under claim and color of title made in good faith, and who shall, for seven successive years after the passage of this act, continue in such possession, and shall also during the said time pay all the taxes legally assessed on such lands or tenements, shall be held and adjudged to be the legal owner of said lands or tenements, to the extent and according to the purport of his or her paper title. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Peter Vivian Daniel, Wright v. Mattison — Opinion of the Court

“ By a statement of facts agreed between the counsel, it was in proof on the trial, that Joel Wright, claiming that he and his brother, Nathaniel, were owners and tenants in common in fee-simple of the land in controversy, took possession of it in 1829, by inclosing and putting under actual cultivation a portion thereof, and that, from time to time, he had extended his inclosures, until, in 1841, he had all the said quarter section under actual cultivation, with the exception of about twenty acres ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Peter Vivian Daniel, Wright v. Mattison — Opinion of the Court

“ All persons holding under such possession, by purchase, devise, or descent, before said seven years shall have expired, and shall continue such possession, and continue to pay the taxes as aforesaid, so as to complete the possession and payment of the taxes for the term aforesaid, shall be entitled to the benefit of this section.'
In this case in the circuit court, which was an action of ejectment, the plaintiff's lessee, the defendant in error here, exhibited in proof a release from the widow of the patentee from the United States, of the premises in question ”

Peter Vivian Daniel

Summary

Quotes from Wright v. Mattison — Opinion of the Court (Peter Vivian Daniel)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature