Hyatt v. Wood
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of trespass quare clausum fregiU The defendant pleaded not guilty. The trespass was alleged t0 '3e rormtted on lot No. 80. in the township of Junius, alK"| COunty of Seneca.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of trespass quare clausum fregiU The defendant pleaded not guilty. The trespass was alleged t0 '3e rormtted on lot No. 80. in the township of Junius, alK"| COunty of Seneca. The cause was tried before Mr. J Justice Spencer, at the Seneca circuit, in June, 1808. It _ was proved, that, in 1795, one Green lived on the lot, and . . began to make improvements ; and- continued to reside on the lot until March, 1805. The plaintiff entered into pos» sess'i°n °f the lot on the 27th February, 1805, under a per» mission from Murray U Mumfordof the city of New- ° J J York, and with the…
1Opinion of the CourtSpencer, J.
It is essential to consider, in the first place, the rights of the parties in the premises. The plaintiff entered under Murray Mumford, and also by the permission of Green, and whilst he was in possession. Murray Mumford appear to have no title to the lot, for none is shown. Green is the only person who appears to have had any interest in it, and that is a possession for nearly ten years. As against all but the rightful owner, Greeds possessory interest must prevail. By the deed of the pth of November, 1804, the defendant became clothed with all Greeds right, of whatsoever kind it might be ;…
2Cited by48 opinions
- Fults v. . MunroNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Reeder v. PurdyIllinois Supreme Court · 1866
- Dolph v. BarneyOregon Supreme Court · 1874
- Floyd v. RicksSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1853
- Pendill v. Union Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1887
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.