by John Marshall

Name: Hunt v. Wickliffe — Opinion of the Court
Author: by John Marshall

Hunt v. Wickliffe — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Hunt v. Wickliffe — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by by John Marshall. It explores elements such as survey, entry and plaintiffs.

Quotes from Hunt v. Wickliffe — Opinion of the Court (by John Marshall)

by John Marshall, Hunt v. Wickliffe — Opinion of the Court

“ There is then strong reason to believe that a subsequent locator, having Floyd's entry in his hands, could, with reasonable inquiry, have found the west line of Robinson's entry.
The defendant also relies on an adversary possession in himself and those under whom he claims, for more than twenty years. His proof of this fact is sufficient; and it is well settled both in the courts of Kentucky and in this Court, that a possession which will bar an ejectment, it also a bar in equity. But in this case, the plaintiffs also have been in possession. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall, Hunt v. Wickliffe — Opinion of the Court

“ Under this construction of the act, the heirs of John Floyd were never before the court, and the decree was made against persons who were not parties to the suit. It cannot affect them (c) . The court therefore has no evidence that the legal or equitable right of Floyd's devisees has been acquired by the plaintiffs. They cannot be allowed to assert the equity of those devisees against the defendant, without making them parties to the suit. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall, Hunt v. Wickliffe — Opinion of the Court

“ Few persons who were alive and in the neighbourhood at the time, now survive. A fact resting mainly in memory, which might have been established with ease in 1780, would be ascertained with difficulty in 1825. Examining the testimony under this aspect of circumstances, we think, although it may not be conclusive, it is sufficient to sustain the entry. John Bradford had no personal knowledge of Robinson's survey, but intimates that he was acquainted with it from the records and from common conversation. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall, Hunt v. Wickliffe — Opinion of the Court

“ Its object is at the same time to appropriate the land it covers, and to give notice to others that the land is appropriated. We do not think the technical objection to substituting a legal description, which cannot be misunderstood, for the more definite description by the proper names of the persons who are heirs; is of such substantial importance as to vitiate the transaction. We are confirmed in this opinion, by the fact that the survey was made in pursuance of the entry in the name of the heirs of John Floyd generally, and that the patent was issued on this survey. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall, Hunt v. Wickliffe — Opinion of the Court

“ It appears from another exhibit in the cause, that in the year 1815 the plaintiffs with others filed their bill in the circuit court of Fayette county, in the state of Kentucky, sitting in chancery, against the heirs and devisees of Thomas Turpin and of John Floyd deceased, praying for a conveyance of 699 acres of land, part of the Woodstock tract.
The bill states that in January 1798, Thomas Turpin sold to John W. Hunt and Abijah Hunt 699 acres, of land, part of John Floyd's survey, called and known by the name of Woodstock tract ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall, Hunt v. Wickliffe — Opinion of the Court

“ Several other entries and surveys were made for the heirs, without specifying their names, and patents issued on them all. The objection was certainly not deemed valid by the officer who was entrusted with the power of granting titles to land. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall, Hunt v. Wickliffe — Opinion of the Court

“ He afterwards entered a settlement and pre-emption warrant to adjoin this military survey; and surveyed them in September 1780. The counsel for the defendant objects to the legality of this entry, because it does not designate the tract for the west line of which it calls; and because David Robinson's survey had not sufficient notoriety to inform a subsequent locator, on what part of Boon's creek he was to search for it.
The first objection is certainly not well founded. Floyd's entry was made before David Robinson's settlement and preemption were surveyed ”

by John Marshall

Summary

Quotes from Hunt v. Wickliffe — Opinion of the Court (by John Marshall)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature