Briggs v. Prosser
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of ejectment, tried at the Oneida circuit in April, 1834, before the Hon. Esek Coweh, then one of the circuit judges. The suit was brought for the recovery of a quarter of an acre of land.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment, tried at the Oneida circuit in April, 1834, before the Hon. Esek Coweh, then one of the circuit judges. The suit was brought for the recovery of a quarter of an acre of land. The plaintiff read in evidence a deed to him, of a tract of 500 acres, of which the premises in question are a part, bearing date in 1793, and proved that a person of the name of Luce went into possession of the premises in question about 30 years since as his tenant; that he remained in possession until about three years since, when he was succeeded by the defendant, who claimed to hold…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Nelson, J.
There can be no doubt that a person entering upon land under a contract of purchase, unperformed on his part, does not hold possession adversely to the vendor. After performance, and an equitable title to a deed of the premises acquired, I perceive no reason why his possession may not become adverse, or in other words, there is nothing in the character of it inconsistent with the idea of an adverse possession. Whether it were in fact adverse or *229not, would depend upon the circumstances of each particular case.
It must have been decided in the case of La Frombois v.…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Wiseman v. . LucksingerNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Hart v. BostwickSupreme Court of Florida · 1872
- Hogan v. KurtzSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Fosgate v. Herkimer Manufacturing & Hydraulic Co.New York Supreme Court · 1852
- Millard v. . McMullinNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.