McCloskey v. McCloskey
McCloskey v. McCloskey
Opinion of the Court
This case was properly tried and determined in the court below. The only doubt which appears in the contest is whether the sheriff’s sale and deed to James Mc-Closkey left any question which ought to have been submitted to the jury, but, as this doubt was resolved in favor of the plaintiffs in error, they have nothing of which to complain.
The judgment is affirmed.
Note. — Although, from facts referred to in the opinion of the supreme court, it may be doubted if any of the questions raised by the assignments of error were decided, the following point should be stated so that it may be noted in the index and digest:
An offer of evidence, to prov.e a confession of title in one tenant in common by another, was held inadmissible, as an independent fact in an offer of compromise, in an action of ejectment.
Reference
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Two brothers purchased, as tenants in common, two adjoining tracts of land, but occupied them separately, each making improvements on the tract on which he resided. One of them purchased the interest of the other at a sheriff’s sale, and made a lease of the mining privileges of the tract occupied by himself, receiving royalties, selling lots, making deeds, etc., more than twenty-one years before suit brought. Held, the lease was evidence of ouster, under the circumstances of this case. Held, also, that the evidence of adverse possession was sufficient, there being no hostile acts, and the title being unchallenged for twenty-one years. Whether an acknowledgment of title sufficient to toll the statute was proved by evidence of money handed by the defendant to the plaintiff was left to the jury. Held, that plaintiff had no cause to complain. The amount of land embraced in a levy, described as too acres, more, or less, was held to embrace some 300 acres.