Birch v. Linton
Citations
- 78 Va. 584
- 1884 Va. LEXIS 32
Syllabus
<p>1. Infants—Deeds—Voidable.—It is well settled that an infant’s conveyance of land is voidable only; and after attaining majority, he may affirm or avoid it. No notice of disaffirmance is required. Entry or action suffices.</p> <p>2. Idem—Silence—Inertness.—Mere silence or inertness for any period short of bar to ejectment, unaccompanied by some confirmatory act, affirms not the conveyance. Wilson v. Branch, 77 Va. 65.</p> <p>3. Practice at Common Law—Instructions.—Instructions founded upon no evidence in the case are properly refused.</p> <p>4. Idem—Idem.—Statute of limitations.—Instructions suggesting that Code 1873, chapter 146, sections 4 and 5, curtails infant’s time of making entry on, or of suing for land, from fifteen to ten years, is erroneous. Those sections enlarge such time, by giving fifteen years in any event or ten years from disability removed.</p> <p>5. Infants—Conveyance—Avoidance—Case at bar.—M, an infant, conveys her land, and then marries, September, 1857, and with husband leaves the State. She comes of age April, 1858. She and husband bring ejectment for her land September, 1876. She had been inert and silent, but absent, while grantee occupied and improved the land. Defendant relied on the statute of limitations.</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>1. She was entitled to disaffirm the deed after attaining majority, and her action was sufficient notice of disaffirmance.</p> <p>2. Without affirmance the deed was not valid. Mere silence or inertness did not affirm it.</p> <p>3. Considering her claim accrued September, 1857, it was not barred when asserted by her action in September, 1876, as she was entitled to fifteen years plus the period from 17th April, 1861, to 2d March, 1866, within which to enter or sue.</p> <p>6. Quaere—Voidable conveyance—Adversary possession.—Can grantee under voidable deed have such adversary possession as will support plea of statute of limitations against his grantor, so long as option of avoidance continues in grantor? Where inf
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- reinstatement denied attorney who continued to hold himself out as licensed to practice law after resignation from bar
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Hinton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.