Hitchcock v. Carpenter
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of dower. David Ferris, deceased, the former husband of Rachel, the wife of Hitchcock, was seised, in his lifetime, of lot No. 12. in Queensberry, in Washington county, being the land of which the demandant claimed dower. The defendant pleaded, 1. Ne unque seise que dower, &c. 2. Ne unque accouple, 8rc. 3. That David Ferris is in life, &c. 4. A conveyance by the demandant, of the premises in question in fee to Elijah Bartow; his heirs, &c.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of dower. David Ferris, deceased, the former husband of Rachel, the wife of Hitchcock, was seised, in his lifetime, of lot No. 12. in Queensberry, in Washington county, being the land of which the demandant claimed dower. The defendant pleaded, 1. Ne unque seise que dower, &c. 2. Ne unque accouple, 8rc. 3. That David Ferris is in life, &c. 4. A conveyance by the demandant, of the premises in question in fee to Elijah Bartow; his heirs, &c. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Yates, at the Washington circuit, the 17th June, 1812. It was proved that David Ferris lived on…
1Per curiam
As the defendant claims under the heirs of Ferris, he is estopped from denying the seisin and death of Ferris, the former husband of the demandant. He has affirmed that seisin by taking under the heirs. This was so considered by this court, in the case of Hitchcock v. Harrington. (6 Johns. Rep. 290.)
The release offered in evidence by the defendant was properly . excluded. It ought to have been pleaded. It could not be given in evidence under any of the pleas on which issue was joined. It had no relation to either.
Motion denied.
2Cited by8 opinions
- Sayre v. NicholsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Hicks v. HindeNew York Supreme Court · 1850
- Norwood v. . MarrowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1838
- Norwood v. MarrowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1839
- Moore v. EstySuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1831
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.