39 Vt. 359 | Vt. | 1867
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The plaintiff is in actual possession and by his deed from Olive Kelsey, is entitled to the benefit of her possession. Her possession was prior to any possession by the defendant or his grantors. The plaintiff will therefore maintain this action of tres?
in the defend; hat under our statute, he has no right to the possession, en held that a plaintiff in possession without right could m¡ trespass agaijj^^jpn the true owner for a dis-turbance, while right of possession was in a third person by lease from the owner., Phillips v. Kent & Miller, 3 Zabriskie, N. J. Rep. 155. Here neither the right of possession nor the ownership was in the defendant.
The plainti aims that upon a correct construction of the deeds he lias Quenton’s title. This point we have not decided. The plaintiff’s
Judgment affirmed.