Harrison v. Stevens
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of ejectment, tried at the Herkimer circuit in March, 1832, before the Hon. Nathan Williams, then one of the circuit judges. The suit was brought for the recovery of 127 acres of land, described as being part of a lot known as “ upper lot number forty-seven,” in Jersey field patent, situate in the town of Russia, in the county of Herkimer.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment, tried at the Herkimer circuit in March, 1832, before the Hon. Nathan Williams, then one of the circuit judges. The suit was brought for the recovery of 127 acres of land, described as being part of a lot known as “ upper lot number forty-seven,” in Jersey field patent, situate in the town of Russia, in the county of Herkimer. The declaration contained three counts: in the first of which the plaintiffs Harrison and Dorrival claimed the premises in fee simple; in the second, Harrison alone claimed the premises in fee simple, and in the third, Dorrival alone…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Savage, Cli. J.
The judge, I think, was correct in deciding that the plaintiff might recover for an undivided part of the premises, although he claimed the whole in his declaration. The statute, 2 R. S. 304, § 9, declares that if the plaintiff claims an undivided share or interest in any premises, he shall state the same particularly in his declaration. But if he claims the whole of certain premises, and it turns out on the trial that the defendant owns a part, shall the plaintiff be nonsuited and be driven to another action to obtain what he is entitled to, merely because his…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Holmes v. SeelyNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Baker v. Heirs of ChastangSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
- Ballance v. RankinIllinois Supreme Court · 1851
- Truax v. ThornNew York Supreme Court · 1848