Harder v. Harder
New York Supreme Court
THE plaintiff’s complaint set forth that Dennis Harder deceased was, in his lifetime, seised in fee of a farm in Chat-ham, in the county of Columbia; that at his death, in 1843, he devised the use, benefit and occupancy thereof to the defendant during his life, and afterwards to the plaintiff in fee; that the defendant took possession thereof soon after the testator’s death, and had ever since occupied the same, and enjoyed the rents, issues and profits thereof; that the…
Read the full summary
THE plaintiff’s complaint set forth that Dennis Harder deceased was, in his lifetime, seised in fee of a farm in Chat-ham, in the county of Columbia; that at his death, in 1843, he devised the use, benefit and occupancy thereof to the defendant during his life, and afterwards to the plaintiff in fee; that the defendant took possession thereof soon after the testator’s death, and had ever since occupied the same, and enjoyed the rents, issues and profits thereof; that the defendant intentionally, and with design to injure the estate and inheritance of the plaintiff in said farm, did, between…
1Opinion of the CourtHogeboom, J.
In disposing of the motion to set aside the inquisition, I do not propose to consider the objection, taken on the argument, that a writ of inquiry in a case of this kind was not a proper remedy, nor that it was not in proper form. These objections are not taken in the moving papers, either in the affidavits or notice of motion, and I regard it as a very salutary as well as a well established rule, that irregularities complained of must be brought to the notice of the adverse party, to the end that he may have an opportunity to answer the same. This is indeed one of the standing rules of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kidd v. DennisonNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Livingston v. ReynoldsNew York Supreme Court · 1841
- Bowman v. SheldonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1852
- Roche v. WardNew York Supreme Court · 1853
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hoyt v. Southern New England Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1891
- Van Deusen v. YoungNew York Supreme Court · 1858
- Keller v. FeldmanNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1893
- Purton v. WatsonCity of New York Municipal Court · 1888