Roggen v. . Avery
New York Court of Appeals
This was an action of ejectment. (Reported below, 63 Barb., 65.) Both parties claimed title under Mary R. Howe, a former owner. Plaintiff claimed under a deed not acknowledged or attested by a subscribing witness. Defendant was a purchaser from a devisee of Mary R. Howe.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment. (Reported below, 63 Barb., 65.) Both parties claimed title under Mary R. Howe, a former owner. Plaintiff claimed under a deed not acknowledged or attested by a subscribing witness. Defendant was a purchaser from a devisee of Mary R. Howe. The principal question discussed was as to whether, under the provision of the Revised Statutes (1 R. S., 738, § 137) declaring a grant in fee not duly acknowledged or attested by at least one witness, ineffectual as against a purchaser, plaintiff could claim under his deed as against a purchaser who had notice^ actual or…
1Opinion of the Court
Earl, C.,
reads for affirmance; Lott, Ch. C., and Gray, 0., concur; Gray, C., upon the last ground discussed in the opinion.
Dwight, C., reads for reversal; Gray, C., concurs in the first ground discussed; Reynolds, C., not sitting.
Order of General Term affirmed and judgment absolute directed against plaintiff:
2Cited by3 opinions
- Chamberlain v. . SpargurNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Chamberlain v. SpargurNew York Supreme Court · 1880
- Strough v. WilderNew York Supreme Court · 1888