Court Opinion

ID: 9417136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:04:03.522259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:36.410890
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Clieeobd
dissenting.
I dissent from the opinion of the court in this case, for two principal reasons: 1. Because it conflicts with the decisions of the State court upon the same subject. 2. Because the statute of limitations applicable to the case began to. run when the defendant acquired the open, exclusive, adverse possession of the premises, by actual residence thereon, under claim and color q| title: it appearing that he continued to reside there, without interruption, for the period of seven years prior to the commencement of the suit, having entered pursuant to a contract with the owner, who had a connected title *712to the same, deducible of record, from the United States; and that the defendant subsequently acquired the title to the premises, in pursuance of the contract, the rule being that such an adverse possession, if uninterrupted and continued for the period of seven years, .is equivalent to an-absolute title,'when confirmed by a conveyance from the- party having a connected title deducible of record, from the United States. Examined in the light of these suggestions, it is clear, in my opinion, that the case was properly submitted to the jury, and that the judgment founded on their verdict should be affirmed.