Niles v. Lindsley
The Superior Court of New York City
Tms was an action of trespass upon real estate. The com- ■ plaint alleges that in 1847, and until the time of the commencement of the action, the plaintiff was seized in fee simple and possessed of fifteen lots in the 19th ward of the city of Mew York. That in 1850, the defendant unlawfully entered upon the lots and carried away a large quantity of earth, which was itself valuable, and also injured the market value of the lots by defacing them.
Read the full summary
Tms was an action of trespass upon real estate. The com- ■ plaint alleges that in 1847, and until the time of the commencement of the action, the plaintiff was seized in fee simple and possessed of fifteen lots in the 19th ward of the city of Mew York. That in 1850, the defendant unlawfully entered upon the lots and carried away a large quantity of earth, which was itself valuable, and also injured the market value of the lots by defacing them. The answer denies any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the plaintiff’s ownership, and then alleges that the defendant bought…
1Opinion of the CourtDuer, J.
I am inclined to think that the certificate of the justice who tried the cause, is the only evidence I can receive as to whether or not “ the title came in question at -the trial.” I must, therefore, in the absence of that, confine myself to' the pleadings.
I am of opinion that the question of title arises upon the pleadings within the meaning of the statute. It is directly put in issue by the first portion of the complaint and answer. The allegation in a subsequent part of the answer, that defendant went upon the lots by leave of the plaintiff’s agent, does not do away with the effect of that…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Grosso v. City of LeadSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
- Bailey v. DaiglerNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- Lillis v. O'ConnerNew York Supreme Court · 1876
- Rathbone v. . McConnellNew York Court of Appeals · 1860