Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

TABLE OF CASES CITED.

Woods v. Wilds, 11 Ark. 754--820. Woodside v. Ridgeway, 126 Mass. 292-868.

Woodson v. Smith, 1 Head (Tenn.), 276-714.

Woodstock v. Bennett, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 711--498.

Woodstock Iron Co. v. Fullen wider, 87 Ala. 584-720, 734, 783. Woodward v. Blanchard, 16 Ill. 424780.

v. Brown, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 1 (1839)-198, 876.

v. Aston, 1 Vent. 296--458. v. Nims, 130 Mass. 70-548. Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. (U. S.)¦ 544--584.

v. Lord, 56 Me. 265--124. Workman v. Guthrie, 29 Pa. St. 495720.

Worrall v. Munn, 38 N. Y. 137--639. Worthington's Lessee v. Etcheson, 5 Cranch (U. S. C. C.), 302--402. Worthington v. Hiss, 70 Md. 172

608, 613, 633.

v. Hyler, 4 Mass. 205--547. v. McRoberts, 9 Ala. 297-491. v. Woods, 22 Neb. 230--860. Wren v. Parker, 57 Conn. 529-282. v. Tollowell, 52 Ark. 76--760. Wriggins v. Holley, 11 Ind. 2--720. Wright v. Roseberry, 121 U. S. 488-468, 469, 470, 472.

v. Carter, 3 Dutch, 77--20, 31, 32.

v. Central R. R. Co., 21 Ga. 335
--825.

v. Dunn, 73 Tex. 293-879.
v. Lessiter, 71 Tex. 640-558.
v. Mattison, 59 U. S. (18 How.)
50--772, 780, 796.

v. Moore, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 233–
158, 159, 342, 488, 394.
v. Pond, 10 Conn. 255-500.
v. Searles, 59 How. Pr. 406--122.
v. Sperry, 21 Wis. 331-143.
v. Stevens, 3 G. Gr. (Iowa) 13-
629.

v. Thompson, 14 Tex.

160.

cxvii

Wynn v. Newman, 75 Va. 817--825. Wynne v. Ld. Newborough, 1 Ves. Jr. 165-77.

Wythe v. Myers, 3 Saw. (U. S.) 595— 615.

Yale v. Randle, 23 La. Ann. 579706.

Yancy v. Hopkins, 1 Munf. (Va.) 419 -505, 509, 510.

Yates v. Kinney, 19 Neb. 275-170. v. Monroe, 13 Ill. 212-828.

v. Paddock, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 529 -30

v. Van De Rogart. 56 N. Y. 526 --548.

Yoder's Heirs v. Easley, 2 Dana (Ky.), 245-866.

Yole County v. Barney, 79 Cal. 375

[blocks in formation]

v. De Bruhl, 11 Rich. (S. C.) L.
638-125, 126.

v. Duvall, 109 U. S. 573-452.
v. Edwards, 33 S. C. 404-135.
v. Gibbeau, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 641-
455.

v. Heffner, 36 Ohio St. 232-764.
v. Holmes, Stran. 70-72, 319.
v. Irwin, 2 Hay (N. C.), 966-157.
v. Martin, 2 Yates (Pa.), 312-
505.

v. Montgomery 28 Mo. 604-162. v. Young. 36 Me. 133-399. Yount v. Howell, 14 Cal. 468-249,

Zeigler v. Fisher's Heirs, 3 Pa. St. 365--245.

v. Hopkins, 117 U. S. 683-528. Zeller v. Eckert, 4 How. (U. S.) 289 -131, 768.

558-Zimmerman v. Eshback, 15 Pa. St. 417-623.

v. Wallbaum, 39 Ill. 554--493, 494.

v. Wright, 2 Halst. (N. J.) 175

111.

Wyatt v. Foster, 79 Tex. 413-549. v. Monroe, 27 Tex. 268-859. Wykoff v. Wykoff, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 481--634.

v. Marchland, 25 Ind. 474-835. Zenor v. Johnson, 111 Ind. 42-821. Zink v. McManus, 49 Hun, 583-278, 328.

Zonch v. Parsons, 3 Burr, 1806-73. v. Willingale, 1 H. Bl. 311-216. Zutchman v. Roberts, 109 Mass. 53 -667.

THE LAW OF EJECTMENT.

CHAPTER I.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ACTION OF EJECTMENT.

§ 1. Preliminary Discourse.

2.

The Old Action an Illustration of the Fictions of the
English Law.

3. A Narrative of the Ancient Remedy by Blackstone.

4.

A Shorter History of the Action by the Author of Walker's
American Law.

5. Common Law Fictions in Pleadings.

6. The Subject Illustrated.

[blocks in formation]

§ 1. Preliminary Discourse. The old common law action of ejectment, incumbered with its fictitious parties, its leases, entries and ousters, has now become almost entirely obsolete in the United States. The right to recover the possession of real property wrongfully withheld, still remains the same as at common law. The old remedy has been abolished as cumbersome. A new system, adapted more to the ideas of modern times, has grown up. As the ruins of the Roman law may be said to be the foundation of every code in Europe, so it may be said the old system of recovering the possession of real property is the foundation of the new. A brief examination into the history, the origin, progress and nature of the old system will enable us to more thoroughly understand the new.

§ 2. The Old Action of Ejectment an Illustration of the Fictions of the English Law. The history of the English law abounds in illustrations of the national attachment to ancient institutions, and of the reluctance with which, however imperious the necessity, the courts depart from estab

« PředchozíPokračovat »