Court Opinion

ID: 7385912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 00:17:03.175441+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:21:32.221990
License: Public Domain

Taylor, JuiGrt
The plaintiff claims ¡na-■~-J tí. r Febm Gilgo, who claimed as heir to William Gilgo, 'ibno died in 178t s and upon the oris by F-bhi, he raid ho had sold the lands which be b.erred as broil:er F fhy hell T<r <2 to Wiüiym Gilgo. This evidence in no; a •: ns Leíble, tub the j«:y i;hot’M not rue;? id i:$ fora ara, after S: rea ool-J, c..«mot say taat which renders the sale kivrti).
.1 ■> to the otVio? point, the dGbndunt formarlv exr.lblv 1 a paper purporting to be a deed to himself from Febhi L'f:;c( ::u. i* bad it pmved and admitted to Teghtnitio» ; auil ci-ion-l ¡To »•«!«* it when the land vfm about to be sold as h:3 lvo'’.c-\> is, therefore, now ir.cistcd, that ke cannot, whatever tG* p!m-i>p r. ?y, ¿e:iy that to hare been the deed of Febiu, lTat oe* tlsc-rfor'', mi'-.i be takvu to exist, and he is estopped to -:y F'-bin had no iUr, Had he exhibited the deed in this ct/crp on fids trial, r .isned title under it, I think he would bare br.'.i estopped» Tciopp.'ls run between pattrc» ?üd privíe«, 5ícjc tit; ritnUisTis not a party to the deed, nor is privy to U»