13 N.H. 145 | Superior Court of New Hampshire | 1842
The relation of landlord and tenant never existed between these parties. Levi H. Morgan was formerly the owner of the premises. The plaintiff endeavors to make his title under an attachment, and a levy of the execution upon the land, as the property of Morgan. The defendant is in possession as lessee of Bartlett and Prescott, who claim under a deed from Morgan, executed prior to the attachment, but not recorded until a subsequent day. The title set up by the plaintiff is, therefore, adverse to that under which the defendant holds, and the latter might have defeated the process upon that ground, never having admitted the plaintiff’s title. Leavitt vs. Wallace, (12 N. H. Rep. 490.)
But the pleadings raise a different question. The defendant avers, in his plea, that Bartlett and Prescott have title, and that he holds as their tenant. The plaintiff replies with a formal traverse of the whole matter. Whether this might not have been objected to, on special demurrer, we need not enquire. The defendant reaffirms the matter of the plea, and tenders an issue upon the whole, which is joined. And the question is, whether the defendant maintains his allegations.
Unless the plaintiff is chargeable with notice of the deed before the attachment was made, the attachment and levy give him the better title.
It appeared in evidence that Morgan himself caused the attachment to be made. He came there with the letter which inclosed the demand. He was in that the agent of the plain
And this is a very appropriate case for the application of the rule ; for it presents a most palpable attempt at fraud on the part of Morgan, with circumstances tending somewhat strongly to show collusion on the part of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff’s title might perhaps be questioned upon an
Judgment on the verdict.