Hutchinson v. Perley
MYRON HUTCHINSON v. FREDERICK A PERLEY
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Heydeneeldt (author), William J. Murray, Jr.
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Heydeneeldt
Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.
Possession is always prima facie evidence of title, and proof of prior possession is enough to maintain ejectment against a mere naked trespasser.
The allegation that the plaintiff was in possession at the the time of the ouster complained of, is a sufficient allegation of title to make the declaration good.
The demurrer was, therefore, improperly sustained.
The judgment is reversed with costs, and the cause remanded.
Cited by
- 3:25-cv-03835 · 2026-05-07
- Dondero v. O'Hara Civ. No. 205. · 1906-05-23