deed rule (West Virginia) · Go Syfert
← West Virginia issues

deed rule in West Virginia

6 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1900–2021 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by West Virginia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Johnston v. Terrygreen
wva · 1945 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1947–1947
1 sentence

1947See Johnston v. Terry, 128 W.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Erwin v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation green
wva · 1950
2 sentences

2021Erwin, 134 W.

2021Hence, the clause may not be considered void under the ‘stranger to the deed’ rule expressed in Syllabus Point 3 of Erwin v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 134 W.

22021–2021
United Fuel Gas Co. v. Morley Oil & Gas Co. green
wva · 1926
1 sentence

1962United Fuel Gas Co. v. Morley Oil & Gas Co., 102 W.

11962–1962
Wilson v. Underhill neutral
mass · 1871
1 sentence

1923Thus by the deed, aided by the records alone, it is easy to ascertain what was intended to be excepted.” Somewhat similar are the cases of Wilson v. Underhill, 108 Mass. 360 , and Brown v. Rickard, 107 N. C. 639 .

11923–1923
Brown v. . Rickard neutral
nc · 1890
1 sentence

1923Thus by the deed, aided by the records alone, it is easy to ascertain what was intended to be excepted.” Somewhat similar are the cases of Wilson v. Underhill, 108 Mass. 360 , and Brown v. Rickard, 107 N. C. 639 .

11923–1923
Lyons v. Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad neutral
ind · 1885
1 sentence

1900A case precisely in point is that of Quick v. Milligan, 101 Ind. 419 , wherein it is held “that where the two great elements of ownership, a deed and possession, are united in one person a ’bona-fide purchaser will be'protected, although the person to whom the deed was entrusted to be delivered on the performance of a condition may have delivered the deed in violation of his duty.” In the present case it is true the deed was not delivered by the depository, but he refused to be responsible for its safekeeping, and was not informed of the purposes for which it was left in his care nor was he di

11900–1900

Where else courts name it

TX 27 (1918–2019) NY 13 (1848–2017) IL 11 (1897–2020) GA 11 (1903–1977) LA 10 (1920–2006) MO 9 (1859–1987) NC 8 (1892–2015) PA 8 (1940–2024) WA 7 (1896–2021) OK 7 (1912–1988) MS 7 (1951–2023) WV 6 (1900–2021) AL 6 (1915–2001) IA 6 (1883–1944) MA 5 (1850–1950) CA 5 (1894–2016) KY 4 (1913–2003) KS 4 (1946–1981) OH 4 (1969–2026) AZ 3 (1935–1976) NH 3 (1990–2024) MI 3 (1947–2016) IN 3 (1884–1905) VT 3 (2005–2024) CT 2 (1884–1928) RI 2 (1927–1933) ME 2 (1994–2010) OR 2 (1959–1980) MN 2 (1921–1999) WI 2 (1896–1977) MD 2 (1931–2010) NE 2 (1906–1942)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check