AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
1 paragraphs · 94 wordsJackson, J.—It appears tome that this special appeal is groundless. The plaintiff has shown that the decision of the Civil Court ban established his right to the land in question. It is not the meaning of section 77 of Act X of 1859, that an intervenor should be allowed to set up an allegation of receipt of rent against a recent declaration of title, nor could the plaintiff be justly remitted to a fresh suit to establish that which he had already established in a former suit. The special appeal is dismissed with costs.