Case ID: root_1/html/0100-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NEW LONDON COUNTY, SUPERIOR COURT,
    SEPTEMBER, A. D. 1785.
    Isham, Administrator on the Estate of Benjamin Fitch, v. Avery.
    A deed, etc. of land, of wliieli the grantor is disseized, is to every purpose null and void.
    ActioN of ejectment, for a piece of land, that belonged to Benjamin Eitcli, deceased, whose estate was insolvent; declaring that said land was ordered by the Court of Probate to be sold for the payment of said Pitch’s debts, and that, the defendant had wrongfully entered into the possession .of it, and disseized the plaintiff thereof and still held the possession thereof against law and right.
    The defendant plead in bar — That the plaintiff, as administrator aforesaid, pursuant to an order of the Court of Probate, sold said land to Daniels, and by deed, dated the day of duly executed, acknowledged and recorded, did grant, bargain aiid sell said lands to. said Daniels, for the consideration of and in and by said deed, did covenant to warrant said lands to said Daniels against all claims and demands in the law whatever, and that thereby the plaintiff is estopped and debarred of demanding and recovering said land against his own deed and warranty aforesaid.
    The plaintiff replied — That true he did execute said deed to said Daniels as-aforesaid; yet he says, that at the time of executing said deed aforesaid, to said Daniels, he the plaintiff was disseized of said land by the defendant, and ousted of the possession; and that’ the said Daniels was not in possession, and by the statute of this state made to prevent the .selling of disputed titles, said deed is utterly void and of no effect, and was so adjudged by the Superior Court, in an action of ejectment brought by said Daniels against the defendant to recover said land.
   To this replication a demurrer was given, and judgment — that the reply is sufficient; for that said deed is void by the statute in every part, and to every intent and purpose.