Belding v. Pitkin
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit, tried before his Honor the C. J. at the Columbia circuit, in July, 1803. The declaration contained the common money counts, and the count for work, labour and services, under which it was agreed that the plaintiff might offer evidence of a special contract.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit, tried before his Honor the C. J. at the Columbia circuit, in July, 1803. The declaration contained the common money counts, and the count for work, labour and services, under which it was agreed that the plaintiff might offer evidence of a special contract. The defendant’s testator was possessed of a grant from the Susquehannah commissioners, so called, for a township of land in the county of Luzerne, and commonwealth of Pennsylvania, under the Connecticut title only. He contracted with the plaintiff, that if he would sell this for him, he would give for so…
1Opinion of the Court
Per curiam delivered by
Thompson J.
I think the plaintiff’s demand cannot be supported. Although the case is somewhat obscurely drawn, I assume as facts admitted, that the claim possessed by the testator Pitkin, to the township of land in Luzerne county, in Pennsylvania, was nothing more than what is usually called, the Connecticut claim, and that there was an adverse possession under the Pennsylvania title, at the time of the sale made to Maxwell. In this I am warranted, because the counsel on the argument *149have so considered the case. Under this statement, the sale to Maxwell was illegal, and…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Hoffman v. McMullenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1897
- Carrington v. CallerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1829
- Chauncy v. YeatonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1818
- Curran v. DownsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1877
- Whitaker v. ConeNew York Supreme Court · 1800
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.