Jackson v. Murray
New York Supreme Court
The plaintiff, in tracing his documentary title to the patentee, produced a lease from Petrus Stoutenburgh to Jacobus Kip, the ancestor of the lessor of the plaintiff, made a few years after the grant of the patent, and purporting to be a lease for a term of years, of all the lands of Petrus Stoutenburgh.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff, in tracing his documentary title to the patentee, produced a lease from Petrus Stoutenburgh to Jacobus Kip, the ancestor of the lessor of the plaintiff, made a few years after the grant of the patent, and purporting to be a lease for a term of years, of all the lands of Petrus Stoutenburgh. He next produced a memorandum of an agreement for the sale of all the lands set forth in the said lease, made between Petrus Stoutenburgh and Jacobus Kip, in 1680, two years after the end of the term granted by the lease. In order to show a performance of the terms of the agreement, as to…
1Opinion of the CourtSpencer, J.
The-testimony is inadmissible; it is merely ex parte: having been found with the title deeds cannot make such a document evidence for the plaintiff. Vide Jackson, ex dem. Beekman et ux v. Witten, 2 Johns. 180.
The plaintiff then proceeded to locate his patent, and offered, in evidence, an old survey of a neighboring patent, made in 1699, by Mr. Graham, the then surveyor-general, as fixing one of the boundary lines of Stoutenburgh’s patent. To prove that this survey had been made by Graham, the plaintiff offered to prove the hand-writing by a witness who had been in the habit of inspecting…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Schauber v. JacksonCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1828
- Vandyck v. Van BeurenNew York Supreme Court · 1803
- Jackson ex dem. Stoutenburgh v. MurrayNew York Supreme Court · 1810
- Jackson ex dem. Beekman v. WitterNew York Supreme Court · 1807