Whittick v. Kane
New York Court of Chancery
The complainant filed Ms bill in this cause in October, 1821, setting forth that, in January, 1772, his paternal grandfather owned lot No. 19, in Snyder’s patent, in the town of Hoosiclc; that he was about 60 years old, ignorant and incapable of reading or writing, or of understanding the contents or import of legal conveyances.
Read the full summary
The complainant filed Ms bill in this cause in October, 1821, setting forth that, in January, 1772, his paternal grandfather owned lot No. 19, in Snyder’s patent, in the town of Hoosiclc; that he was about 60 years old, ignorant and incapable of reading or writing, or of understanding the contents or import of legal conveyances. That on the 11th of November, 1763, he borrowed of Cornelius Van Schelluyne, father of Dirck Van Schelluyne one of the origmal defendants in this cause and of Deborah the wife of Elias Kane, £50, for which he gave his bond payable with interest, together with a…
1Opinion of the Court
*The Chancellor :—By the testimony in this cause, the complainant has established the principal allegations contained in his bill. It appears that Crean Brush, by lease and release bearing date on the 24th and 25th of September, 1762, for the consideration of 507, conveyed lot No. 19 in Snyder’s patent, in the town of Hoosiclc, to John Wit-tick or Whittick, the paternal grand-father of the complainant, together with two other lots which were then supposed to be within that patent, but which afterwards fell within the line of the state of Vermont. Whittick went into possession of the land, and…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Russell v. SouthardSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Pierce v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Averill v. LoucksNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Hodges v. . the Tennessee Marine and Fire Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Brophy Mining Co. v. Brophy & Dale Gold & Silver Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1880
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.