Voorhees v. De Meyer
New York Supreme Court
In Equity. Under the provisions of an act of the legisla^ ture, passed in 1790, certain commissioners appointed by that act surveyed and divided lot No. 20, in the Hardenburgh patent, into smaller lots, and marked their boundaries.
Read the full summary
In Equity. Under the provisions of an act of the legisla^ ture, passed in 1790, certain commissioners appointed by that act surveyed and divided lot No. 20, in the Hardenburgh patent, into smaller lots, and marked their boundaries. In 1811 or 1812, James Cockburn subdivided lot No. 34, one of the subdivisions of great lot No. 20, made by the commissioners in 1790, into 16 lots, and in the division of these lots among the owners, lots Nos. 9 and 11 were allotted to Christina De Meyer, the wife of the defendant. According to Cocliburn’s survey, lot No. 9 contained 45¿ acres, and lot No, 11,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Harris, P. J.
i concur entirely with the assistant vice chancellor in the view he has taken of the facts in this case. After a careful examination of all the proofs before the court, I am satisfied that no part of the gore spoken of by the witnesses was embraced within the boundaries of lot No. 34, as located by the commissioners in 1790; and that Cockburn, in the survey and subdivision of the lot made by him in 1811, or 1812, extended his survey beyond the north boundary of the lot, so as to include within lot No. 11 of his subdivision, 43$ acres of the gore. If this be so, it…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Harris v. TroupNew York Court of Chancery · 1840
3Cited by11 opinions
- Crislip v. CainWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1882
- Steele v. BranchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Oppenheimer v. HumphreysNew York Supreme Court · 1890
- Hall v. GavittIndiana Supreme Court · 1862
- Arend v. LaingNew York Supreme Court · 1894
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.