William Burnham Woods

Name: Stebbins v. Duncan — Opinion of the Court
Author: William Burnham Woods

Stebbins v. Duncan — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Stebbins v. Duncan — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by William Burnham Woods. It explores elements such as deed, plaintiffs and Dunbar.

Quotes from Stebbins v. Duncan — Opinion of the Court (William Burnham Woods)

William Burnham Woods, Stebbins v. Duncan — Opinion of the Court

“ The plaintiffs did not offer oral evidence of the contents of the depositions, but offered copies which were admitted by counsel for defendant to be true copies. It was, therefore, not necessary to retake the depositions or to prove the death of the witnesses, or their incapacity to testify. The copy of the deposition was, by consent, substituted for the original, which was proven to have been destroyed, and, being admitted to be a true copy, spoke for itself. It was, therefore, properly received in evidence. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Burnham Woods, Stebbins v. Duncan — Opinion of the Court

“ It certainly cannot be the fair construction of the statute that a party may stand by and see the suggestion of the death of the opposing party entered of record, and his heir or devisee substituted in his stead, and upon final trial require further proof of the death, at least without some notice of his purpose to raise that particular issue. The death of the plaintiff, after the order of the court, may be considered as settled between the parties for that case, unless some motion is made or issue raised on the part of the defendant by which the fact of the death is controverted. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Burnham Woods, Stebbins v. Duncan — Opinion of the Court

“ It was further objected to the admission in evidence of the proof relating to the deed of John J. Dunbar to Prout, that as the testimony to establish its execution was the proof of the handwriting of subscribing witnesses, it was necessary to prove the identity of the grantor in the deed; that is to say, that the John J. Dunbar by whom the deed purported to be executed was the same John J. Dunbar named in the patent for the lands in controversy. In any case slight proof of identity is sufficient. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Burnham Woods, Stebbins v. Duncan — Opinion of the Court

“ The genuineness of the handwriting of Smallwood as a witness to the deed was placed beyond all doubt by the depositions of these witnesses. If, therefore, the evidence by which this proof was made was competent and admissible, the execution of the deed from Dunbar to Prout was established, and the deed itself was properly admitted in evidence. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Burnham Woods, Stebbins v. Duncan — Opinion of the Court

“ We are of opinion, therefore, that the fact that the deed of Dunbar to Prout was recorded on June 23, 1818, was proved by competent evidence, and that it therefore follows that the title of the plaintiffs was better and superior to that of defendants, who claimed under a deed for the same lands not recorded until June 18, 1870, more than 50 years after its date, and long after innocent purchasers had bought the lands and paid a valuable consideration for them. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Burnham Woods, Stebbins v. Duncan — Opinion of the Court

“ He testified that it had been sent to the counsel in Chicago of the original plaintiff in the case; that it had been offered in evidence on the first trial of the case, and had been burned with the other papers and records of the court in the fire mentioned. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Burnham Woods, Stebbins v. Duncan — Opinion of the Court

“ By an act, approved July 21, 1837, (Purple, Real Est. St. 496, 497,) it was provided that the recording of any deed, * * * whether executed within or without the state, by the recorder of the county in which the lands intended to be affected are situated, shall be deemed and taken to be notice to subsequent purchasers and creditors from the date of such recording, whether said writing shall have been acknowledged or proven in conformity with the laws of the state or not, and that the provisions of the act shall apply as well to writings heretofore as those hereafter admitted to record. ”

William Burnham Woods

Summary

Quotes from Stebbins v. Duncan — Opinion of the Court (William Burnham Woods)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature