Davis v. Coblens
174 U.S. 719 (1899)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Davis v. Coblens, 174 U.S. 719 (1899)

Davis v. Coblens

No. 248

Argued April 18-19, 1899

Decided May 22, 1899

174 U.S. 719

Syllabus

In this action of ejectment, the evidence of adverse possession contained in the bill of exceptions and set forth in the opinion of this Court is sufficient to justify the action of the trial court in submitting the question to the jury.

By the terms of the statute in force in the District of Columbia, the time of limitation of this action commenced to run against Lucy T. Davis, one of the plaintiffs in error, on the death of her mother, and as her mother's death took place more than ten years after the cause of action accrued, the term against the plaintiff in error expired in ten years after it accrued, and no disability on her part arrested its running.

It is the general practice to permit tenants in common to sue jointly or separately in ejectment, but if they sue jointly, it is with the risk of the failure of all if one of them fails to make out a title or right to possession.

When a cross-examination is directed to matters not inquired about in the principal examination, its course and extent are very largely subject to the control of the court in the exercise of a sound discretion, and the exercise of that discretion is not reviewable on a writ of error.

The plaintiff requested the following instruction:

"The jury are instructed that there is no testimony in this case tending to rebut the testimony of the witness John H. Walter that he never conveyed lot 10, in controversy in this case, to any person other than the conveyance by the deed to plaintiffs Charles M. N. Latimer, Lucy T. Davis and others, and the jury would not be justified in finding to the contrary."

The court struck out the words in italics, and inserted instead, "and the weight to be given his testimony is a proper question for the jury." Held that this was not error.

The statement of the case will be found in the opinion of

the Court.

Page 174 U. S. 720

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.