LESSEE OF WILLIAM A. POWELL, AND OTHERS
v.
JOHN HARMAN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A defendant in Tennessee claimed that seven years of possession barred the plaintiff's title to land, but the defendant's connection to an original grant relied on a void deed executed by someone without authority to convey. The Supreme Court held that under Tennessee's 1797 statute of limitations, possession is protected only when held under a valid grant or valid conveyances legally connected to a grant, and therefore a void deed cannot support a claim of protective possession under the statute.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr Chief Justice Mahshall.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question now. referred to this Court differs from that which >was decided in Patton’s lessee vs. Easton, 1 Wheat. 476, in this, that the defendant who sets up a possessidn of s^Vjen years in bar of the plaintiff’s title, endeavours to connect'himself with a grant. The sale and conveyance however, by which this connexion is to be formed, are admitted to be void. The conveyance being made by a person having no authority to make it, is of no validity, and cannot connéct the purchaser with the original grant. We are therefore of opinion that the law is for the plaintiff and that this be certified as the opinipn of this Court.
This cause came on to be heard on a certificate of division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court of the United States for the district-of west Tennessee, ánd on the questions and points on which the said judges of that court were divided in opinion/and which have been certified to this Court; and was argued by counsel: on consideration whereof, this Court is of opinion, that under the statute of limitations of Tennessee, of seventeen hundred and ninety seven, a possession of seven years is a protection only when held under a grant or under valid rhesne conveyafices; dr a paper title, which are legally or equitably connected with a grqnt; : and that a void deed' is not such a conveyance, as that a possession Under it will be protected under the statute of limitations ; all which is directed and ordered to be certified, to the said circuit court of the United States, for the seventh circuit and district of west Tennessee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U.S. 47 (U.S. 1891)
-
Gelpcke v. The City of Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175 (U.S. 1863)
-
Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U.S. 647 (U.S. 1893)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Patton's Lessee v. Easton, 1 Wheat. 476 (U.S. 1816)