STATE v. STANSBOROUCH, 1 Del. Cas. 428 (1796)

Bayard’s Notebook, 185.[*]

STATE v. STANSBOROUCH.

Supreme Court of Delaware, Sussex County.
March, 1796.

[*] This case is also reported in Wilson’s Red Book, 154.

This was an indictment for a forcible detainer of a messuage etc., whereof a certain John Sharp at the time of the defendant’s entry was peaceably seised.

The evidence of a forcible detainer was that Job Sharp, the son of John, went to the messuage in question and attempted to take possession but was forcibly prevented by defendant. There was some proof that Job acted by the direction of the father and also evidence that the father was insane.

READ, C. J.,

ruled that a verbal direction of the father to the son was a sufficient authority to the son to take possession of the house, and that a resistance against him was a forcible detainer from the father, and that, if the father were deemed non compos, yet if the act of the son was for the recovery or preservation of the possession of the father, from the necessity of the case, the act would be considered as allowed by the father.

White and Peery for State. Wilson, Ridgely an Bayard for defendant.

Page 429

jdjungle