Jackson ex dem. Carman v. Rosevelt
New York Supreme Court
, THIS was an action of ejectment for lots No. 2. 7. 12. 17. 22. 26, 27, and half of No. 21, in the subdivision of lot No. 20, in the great lot No. % in the Hardenburgh patent, situate in the town of Liberty, in the county of Sullivan, and in which the parlies agreed on a case for the decision of the court..
Read the full summary
, THIS was an action of ejectment for lots No. 2. 7. 12. 17. 22. 26, 27, and half of No. 21, in the subdivision of lot No. 20, in the great lot No. % in the Hardenburgh patent, situate in the town of Liberty, in the county of Sullivan, and in which the parlies agreed on a case for the decision of the court.. On the 20th of April, 1703, letters patent were issued to the seven proprietors of the Hardenburgh patent, among whom'was Leonard Lewis, from whom the lessors of the plaintiff ultimately derived their title. On the 6th of September, 1729, the patentees conveyed to James Graham one equal…
1Opinion of the CourtYates, J.
The first question in this cause is, as to the validity of the general judgment entered in the suit instituted by the executors of Nathaniel Marston, against Elizabeth'Ellis and Jacobus Van Kleech, and Sarah, his wife, as heirs and devisees of Laurence Van Kleech, under which the defendant claims his title, derived from the purchaser at a sheriff’s sale, in virtue of an execution issued on that judgment.
The rule recognised in the books is, that, when the heir pleads a false plea, the plaintiff is entitled to a general judgment, but that non est factum of the ancestor is not deemed such a…
2Cited by23 opinions
- Tucker v. HarrisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1853
- Herrick v. MorrillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Britton v. TurnerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1834
- Averill v. WilsonNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Cavender v. Heirs of SmithSupreme Court of Iowa · 1855
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.