Ham v. Schuyler
New York Court of Chancery
THE bill of the plaintiffs stated, that in 1730, Casper Ham, the grandfather of the plaintiffs, with the consent of the proprietor of the manor of Rensselaer, entered into possession on the east side of the Hudson river, of a part of the manor then being a wilderness, except a few settlements near the river. That Casper Ham had the promise of a lease from the proprietor, and paid an annual rent.
Read the full summary
THE bill of the plaintiffs stated, that in 1730, Casper Ham, the grandfather of the plaintiffs, with the consent of the proprietor of the manor of Rensselaer, entered into possession on the east side of the Hudson river, of a part of the manor then being a wilderness, except a few settlements near the river. That Casper Ham had the promise of a lease from the proprietor, and paid an annual rent. That some time previous to the year 1760, the land was transferred to Elizabeth TenBroeck; and between 1760 and 1780, Abraham j2roec]Ci her husband, became solely seised of the tract. That after the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
This case affords a necessary presumption, either of a lease in fee to Casper Ham, the ancestor of the plaintiffs, from Van Rensselaer, the proprietor of the manor, or of an agreement for such a lease.
The premises are included in the manor of Rensselaer; and Casper Ham took possession, some time in the former part of the last century, of about 300 acres of land, of which the premises are a part. The precise time cannot be ascertained, though the family tradition is, that he entered in or about the year 1730. His daughter Maritje, who was eighty-five years of age at the time of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- In re Hatch's EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1890
- In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of KentNew York Surrogate's Court · 1915
- Bank of Steubenville v. LeavittOhio Supreme Court · 1831
- Lessee of Blake v. DavisOhio Supreme Court · 1851