Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/8/165/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/8/165/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Hicks v. Rogers, 8 U.S. 4 Cranch 165 165 (1807)
Hicks v. Rogers
8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 165
ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION AMONG THE JUDGES
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT
Syllabus
In Vermont, tenants in common holding under a devise of an estate to be equally divided between them may maintain a joint action of ejectment.
This was a case certified from the Circuit Court for the District of Vermont, the judges of that court being opposed in opinion upon the question whether the plaintiffs, devisees of a tract of land to be equally divided between them, could, under the will, support a joint action of ejectment. The declaration did not set forth the title of the plaintiffs otherwise than by the following averment:
"Of which tract or parcel of land the plaintiffs on the 6 April, 1804, were well seized and possessed in their own right, and so continued thereof possessed until 8 April in the year last aforesaid, when the defendant, without law or right and contrary to the will of the plaintiffs, thereinto entered and ejected, expelled, drove out and removed the plaintiffs therefrom, and ever since hath, and still doth keep out the plaintiffs from the premises, taking the whole profits to himself, which is to the damage of the plaintiffs six hundred dollars, to recover which, and the quiet and peaceable possession of the said premises, and just costs, they bring this suit."
The Court decided that the action was well brought and that the will ought to be received in evidence to support the declaration.
