midpage

Tuttle v. ReynoldsTuttle v. Reynolds

Supreme Court of Vermont
Jan 15, 1828
Reporters:
Before:
Turner
Turner, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. It is a clear principle of law that ‍‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‍a tenant cannot dispute the tide of his landlord. The evidence offered admits that Reynolds went into the occupation of the land in question, as a tenant of Catlin. Nor is it ‍‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‍competent for the defendant .to dispute the tittle of Catlin’s grantee. It is immaterial, as to him, whether Catlin and Tuttle had a legal tide or not. For his occupation of the land under Cat-*81Un is ‍‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‍an admission of tide, which he is forever precluded from retracting. After the transfer to Tuttle, the defendant should have attorned to him or surrendered the possession. And ‍‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‍after refusitig to do either, and after disclaiming to hold under Cailin, notice to quit was unnecessary on the part of Catlin or his grantee. — Bul. N. P. 96. From these principles it results that ‍‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‍the evidence should have been admitted. New trial granted.

Van JYess, for the plaintiff. Balley\ for tile defendant.

Case Details

Case Name: Tuttle v. Reynolds
Court Name: Supreme Court of Vermont
Date Published: Jan 15, 1828
Citation: 1 Vt. 80
Court Abbreviation: Vt.
Log In