Munsel v. Sanford
Munsel v. Sanford, 1 Root 257 (1791)
Headnotes
Where the defendant acquires title to the lands demanded, pending the suit the plaintiff must fail.
Summary
Action of ejectment, for a piece of land. Plea in bar — That since the date of the plaintiffs’ writ, one Calkins had an execution against the plaintiffs, by virtue of which he took said land, and had it set off to him as the law directs; and by deed of bargain and sale hath conveyed it to the defendant, tvhereby the defendant is become seized thereof.
Plaintiffs admit the execution, levy and deed of the defendant— But say that Tapping Reeve, Esq. was their known attorney in Litchfield; that neither he nor they were ever notified of said levy; and that the same is illegal and void.
Defendant rejoins — That neither said Calkins, nor the constable, who levied said execution, knew that said Reeve was their attorney, or that the plaintiffs lived out of the state. Demurrer.
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Judgment — Defendant’s rejoinder sufficient.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.