By the law of South Carolina the 30 day rule is substituted for a scire facias on a judgment in those cases only where lapse of time prevents the Plaintiff from suing out execu tion. Griffith v. Frazier,
2. A purchaser with notice is pr.- See Writ of right, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16,
tected by his vendor's want of no- tice. Alexander v Pendleton, 462
3. A purchaser without notice has a right to join his adversary posses
sion to the ostens ble adversary See Admiralty, 13, possession of his vendor, so as to
After a lapse of 7 years the Court will refuse to decree a specific
performance of a contract, in the See Writ of right, 3, 4, 5, 14,
part execution of which the Com- plainants, or those under whom they claim, have expended large sums of money, although the first default was on the part of the De- fendant, and although it be proba- ble that the failure of the Defen- dant, in that respect, has prevent- ed the completion of the execution of the contract on the part of the Complainants; circumstances ha- ving so changed that neither party could derive, from the execution of the contract, all the benefits which were at first expected. Pratt v Carroll,
See Limitations, 7, 8, 9,
See Admiralty, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36.
any tenant more land than he holds, he may plead non-tenure as to the parcel not holden; but the writ shall abate only as to the par- cel whereof non tenure is pleaded and admitted or proved. Green v. Liter, 5. Under the act of Kentucky to amend process in chancery and common law, the party may re- cover, although he prove only part of the claim in his declaration; but it does not enable him to join parties in an action, who could not be joined at the common law. Green v. Liter, 230 6. The act of Virginia of 1786, re- forming the method of proceeding in writs of right, did not vary the rights or legal predicament of the parties, as they existed at the common law It did not, there~ fore, change the nature and effect of the pleadings; and, notwith- standing that act, the tenant shall have the full benefit of the ordina- ry pleas in abatement. The clause in the act which provides that the tenant, at the trial, may, on the general issue, give in evidence any matter which might have been specially pleaded, is confined to matters in bar. Green v. Liter,
patentee, upon the issuing of his. patent. Green v. Liter, 11. A conveyance of wild or vacant lands, gives a constructive seizin thereof in deed to the grantee, and attaches to him all the legal remedies incident to the estate; a fortiori, this principle applies to a patent. Green v Liter, 12. In Kentucky the patent is the completion of the legal title; and it is the legal title only that can come in controversy in a writ of right. Green v. Liter, 233 13. A better subsisting title in a third person is no defence in a writ of right. Green v. Liter, 14. If tenants claiming different parcels of land by distinct titles, omit to plead that matter in abate- ment, and join the mise, it is an admission that they are joint-te- nants of the whole; and the ver- dict, if for the demandant for any parcel of the land, may be gene- ral that he hath more mere right
to hold the same than the tenants; and if of any parcel for the te- nants, that they have more mere right to hold the same than the demandant, Green v. Liter, 233 15. If a man enter into lands, having title, his seizin is not bound by his actual occupancy, but is held to be co extensive with his title. But if a man enter without title, his seizin is confined to his possession by metes and bounds. Green v. Liter, 234 16 An entry into a parcel which is vacant will not give seizin of a parcel which is in an adverse seizin; but an entry into the last parcel in the name of the whole, will enure as an entry into the va- cant parcel. Green v. Liter, 234 17. By a conveyance taking effect under the statute of uses, the bar- gainee has a complete seizin in deed, without actual entry or live- ry of seizin. Green v. Liter. 234
« EelmineJätka » |