Whitmarsh v. Cutting
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court, Whitmarsk brought an action of trespass quare clausumfregit against Cutting, f entering his close and carrying away a quantity of wheat and The defendant pleaded not guilty; and there was a trial by jury. The plaintiff proved that, in August, 1812, the defendant entered his close and took and carried away the wheat, &c.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court, Whitmarsk brought an action of trespass quare clausumfregit against Cutting, f entering his close and carrying away a quantity of wheat and The defendant pleaded not guilty; and there was a trial by jury. The plaintiff proved that, in August, 1812, the defendant entered his close and took and carried away the wheat, &c. The defendant then proved that the wheat and rye had been constable, on an execution against one Hilton, and that the defendant assisted the constable in carrying the grain y- The defendant offered Hilton as a witness to prove…
1Per curiam
The verdict was clearly against law. The crop sown did not belong to Hilton, but to his successor. This lease was for a year certain, and then renewed for the next year 5 and it was his folly to sow when he knew that his term would expire before he could reap. The doctrine of emblements is founded entirely on the uncertainty of the termination of the tenant’s estate. Where that is certain there exists no title to emblements. Without touching any other points, we are of opinion that the verdict was against law and evidence, and that the judgment below must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Glenn v. SavageOregon Supreme Court · 1887
- Sievers v. BrownOregon Supreme Court · 1899
- Reilly v. RinglandSupreme Court of Iowa · 1874
- Meffert v. DyerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904