Jackson ex dem. Minkler v. Minkler
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of ejectment, tried at the Schenectady c'rcu‘b September, 1812, before Mr. Justice Yates. By the consent rule, the defendants were admitted as landlords in the place of I. Stiles, as to such of the lands as should be proved at the trial 1° be in the possession of Robert Smith.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of ejectment, tried at the Schenectady c'rcu‘b September, 1812, before Mr. Justice Yates. By the consent rule, the defendants were admitted as landlords in the place of I. Stiles, as to such of the lands as should be proved at the trial 1° be in the possession of Robert Smith. On the trial, the lessor °f the plaintiff proved that he was in possession of the premises in question about 8 years ago, when he moved away, and two of his sons, Hermanns and Samuel, occupied it on shares; and that David Minkler, who afterwards resided on the farm, had said that, the farm belonged to…
1Per curiam
The lessor of the plaintiff showed sufficient, in the first instance, to entitle him to recover. The deed fl'oiii the mortgagee was, however, a protection to the defendants, for that part of the premises which it covered; for though no regular foreclosure of the mortgage was proved, yet the assignee of the mortgagee being in possession, way protect his possession by it. This is not the case of a stranger setting up an outstanding mortgage.
The plaintiff is, accordingly, entitled to judgment for the seven acres, purchased in 1797, and no more.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
2Cited by8 opinions
- Jackson ex. dem. Merrit v. BowenNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Johnson v. SandhoffSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Farm Mortgage Loan Co. v. PettetNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1924
- Munro v. MerchantNew York Supreme Court · 1858
- Wing v. . De La RiondaNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.