Skip to content


Hicks Vs. Rogers - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number8 U.S. 165
AppellantHicks
RespondentRogers
Excerpt:
.....in common holding under a devise of an estate to be equally divided between them may maintain a joint action of ejectment. this was a case certified from the circuit court for the district of vermont, the judges of that court being opposed in opinion upon the question whether the plaintiffs, devisees of a tract of land to be equally divided between them, could, under the will, support a joint action of ejectment. the declaration did not set forth the title of the plaintiffs otherwise than by the following averment: "of which tract or parcel of land the plaintiffs on the 6 april, 1804, were well seized and possessed in their own right, and so continued thereof possessed until 8 april in the year last aforesaid, when the defendant, without law or right and contrary to the will.....
Judgment:
Hicks v. Rogers - 8 U.S. 165 (1807)
U.S. Supreme Court Hicks v. Rogers, 8 U.S. 4 Cranch 165 165 (1807)

Hicks v. Rogers

8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 165

ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION AMONG THE JUDGES

OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT

Syllabus

In Vermont, tenants in common holding under a devise of an estate to be equally divided between them may maintain a joint action of ejectment.

This was a case certified from the Circuit Court for the District of Vermont, the judges of that court being opposed in opinion upon the question whether the plaintiffs, devisees of a tract of land to be equally divided between them, could, under the will, support a joint action of ejectment. The declaration did not set forth the title of the plaintiffs otherwise than by the following averment:

"Of which tract or parcel of land the plaintiffs on the 6 April, 1804, were well seized and possessed in their own right, and so continued thereof possessed until 8 April in the year last aforesaid, when the defendant, without law or right and contrary to the will of the plaintiffs, thereinto entered and ejected, expelled, drove out and removed the plaintiffs therefrom, and ever since hath, and still doth keep out the plaintiffs from the premises, taking the whole profits to himself, which is to the damage of the plaintiffs six hundred dollars, to recover which, and the quiet and peaceable possession of the said premises, and just costs, they bring this suit."

The Court decided that the action was well brought and that the will ought to be received in evidence to support the declaration.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //