Howard v. Easton
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, from the court of common pleas of Eneida county. it as ton ¡brought 3.11 «tction of" assumpsit íigctinst Hoto* ard, in the court below.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, from the court of common pleas of Eneida county. it as ton ¡brought 3.11 «tction of" assumpsit íigctinst Hoto* ard, in the court below. The declaration stated, that on, &c. at, &c. a certain conversation was had between the parties, relative to the sale of the possession, and improvements made by the plaintiff, of a tract of 150 acres of land, in lot No. 3. in the Oriskany patent, in which conversation it was then and there agreed, that in consideration that the plaintiff promised and agreed to sell and deliver up to the defendant, the possession and im-? provements made by the…
1Per curiam
Here was an agreement to sell and deliver possession, as well as the improvements upon land; *207and possession must be considered as an interest in land, within the meaning of the statute of frauds, so as to render the contract void, as not having been reduced to writing. Possession is prima facie evidence of title, and no title is complete without it. The judgment below must, therefore, be reversed..
Judgment reversed*
2Cited by10 opinions
- Lower v. WintersNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Sarkisian v. TeeleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Johnson v. HansonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
- Cassell v. CollinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1853
- Catlett v. DoughertyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1886
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.