Wiswall v. Hall
New York Court of Chancery
The bill in this cause was filed for the purpose of settling the right of the complainant to a wharf, and to wharfage and dockage at the same; which wharf was erected on or adjacent to lot No. 22, south of and adjoining Lyditis street, in the city of Albany.
Read the full summary
The bill in this cause was filed for the purpose of settling the right of the complainant to a wharf, and to wharfage and dockage at the same; which wharf was erected on or adjacent to lot No. 22, south of and adjoining Lyditis street, in the city of Albany. The complainant claimed the wharf and the right to wharfage, &c. under a contract of purchase from the defendants ; and under a conveyance from them, by which they conveyed to him the lot, with the privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging or appertaining. The defendants insisted that they only intended to sell to the complainant…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The objection of the defendants, that the complainant has a full and adequate remedy at law if the wharf and wharfage, &c. are actually conveyed by the deed, probably comes too late. Objections to the jurisdiction of the court should be made by plea or demurrer, or should be specifically stated in the answer. But the nature of this property, and the necessity of removing the cloud upon the title, so as to enable the complainant to obtain his share of dockage, &c. from the dockmaster, would perhaps have been sufficient grounds for sustaining this bill to settle the rights of the…
2Cited by31 opinions
- Glass v. HulbertMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Barlow v. . ScottNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Welles v. . YatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Christie v. MaldenWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1884
- Beardsley v. . DuntleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.