McCreery v. Duane
McCreery v. Duane
Opinion of the Court
1. The objections to the introduction in evidence' of the deed from the city to McCreery were properly overruled. (McCreery v. Sawyer, ante, p. 257.)
2. The only other point relied on by the appellant arises upon^ the following portion of the bill of exceptions: “ And the defendant John Duane then offered to prove that neither the plaintiff nor his grantor was in the bona fide possession of the said land on the 8th day of March, 1866, nor any one for them, which evidence was offered for the purpose of attacking said deed from the city; but said defendant did not propose or offer to prove in connection with said offer that he, said Duane, had complied with the terms and conditions of said ordinances or acts of the Legislature; but the evidence so offered was excluded by the Court.”
Upon the views just announced in McCreery v. Sawyer, supra, this ruling was correct.
Judgment and order affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- ANDREW B. McCREERY v. CHARLES P. DUANE
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Conveyance by a Trustee to the Beneficiary. — If a city holds the title to land in trust to be conveyed to persons who were, on a certain day, in the bona fide possession of the same, and executes a deed of a portion thereof, with a recitation therein that the grantee is one of the beneficiaries, in eject- ■ ment brought by the grantee against one in possession, but who does not claim to be a beneficiary, the defendant cannot raise the question that the plaintiff was not a beneficiary. The deed is conclusive as against him on that question. Recitals in a Deed.—A. recital, in a deed given by a trustee, of facts showing that the grantee is one of the beneficiaries to whom the trustee, by the terms of the trust, was required to convey, are prima facie evidence of such facts, in ejectment by the grantee against one not claiming to be a beneficiary under the trust.