Majority
p. 573LEWIS v. THOMAS PURNELL, JR. Supreme Court. Kent. October, 1818. Clayton’s Notebook, 77.
Hall and Clayton
argued for plaintiff in the principal case. It is laid down in the books that as against a precedent occupier the record is no evidence. 2 Sell,Pr. 225; 1 Sid. 239; Selw. 673; Esp.N.P. 494. It would be, therefore, against a subsequent one. A purchase of land, though without notice and for a valuable consideration, if made pendente lite, as this must have been, is
p. 574void. 2 P.Wms. 482. Defendant came in under his father and is therefore a privy.
mentioned a similar case, Clark v. Pennington, in which he. said the Court' of Common Pleas, New Castle, rejected the evidence. But, on error brought, the point was found unnecessary; plaintiff obtained a verdict on other evidence.
Bidgely, for defendant,
withdrew his objection, so the point was not determined.