Maigley v. Hauer
New York Supreme Court
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. The return stated, that, on the 25th of February, 2809, in Columbia county, Hauer sued Maigley by summons.
Read the full summary
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. The return stated, that, on the 25th of February, 2809, in Columbia county, Hauer sued Maigley by summons. The parties appeared, and the plaintiff declared, stating a colloquium about a farm possessed by the plaintiff, and in which he had a life estate; and it was agreed that if the plaintiff would give up the possession to the ■ defendant for life, the defendant would deliver to the plaintiff yearly, during his life, one third of the wheat and rye which the defendant should raise, and that he would maintain the plaintiff for life with…
1Per curiam
It is a settled rule, that where the consideration is expressly stated in a deed, and it is not said also, ánd for other considerations, you cannot enter into proof of any other, for that would be contrary to the deed. This was so decided by this court in Schermerhorn v. Vanderheyden, (1 Johns. Rep. 139.) and again in Howes v. Barker, (3 Johns. Rep. 506.) The same rule prevails in equity according to the cases of Clarkson v. Hanway, (2 P. Wms. 203.) and of Peacock v. Monk, (1 Vesey, 127.) and the remedy for the party, if the deed be contrary to the truth of the case,' is by seeking relief in…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Williamson v. BerrySupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- Powell v. Monson & Brimfield Manuf'g Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1824
- Carver v. LouthainIndiana Supreme Court · 1872
- Houston v. BlackmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Galbreath, Stewart & Co. v. CookSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1875
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.