History
  • No items yet
midpage
Miller's Administrator v. Young
17 F. Cas. 365
U.S. Circuit Court for the Dis...
1812
Check Treatment
The Court,

however,

(Thruston, J., absent,)

had made up their opinion, that the statute against pretensed titles did not vacate the deed; and that the agreement to settle the account, being executed by a deed with general warranty, which was accepted by the plaintiff, the transaction was closed and could not be disaffirmed; and that the plaintiff must resort to his warranty..

Case Details

Case Name: Miller's Administrator v. Young
Court Name: U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
Date Published: Jul 15, 1812
Citation: 17 F. Cas. 365
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.