Doubleday v. . Heath and Others
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs instituted proceedings, by summons and complaint, in the Washington County Court, for the partition of lands in said county. They claimed to be seized in fee simple, and entitled, as tenants in common in the right of Mrs. Doubleday, to one-sixth part of the land, under a devise in the will of her grandfather, Thomas Bradshaw.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs instituted proceedings, by summons and complaint, in the Washington County Court, for the partition of lands in said county. They claimed to be seized in fee simple, and entitled, as tenants in common in the right of Mrs. Doubleday, to one-sixth part of the land, under a devise in the will of her grandfather, Thomas Bradshaw. The defendants appeared and answered, denying the interests of the plaintiffs, as claimed by them in the complaint, and setting up that certain posthumous grandchildren of Thomas Bradshaw, who were subsequently made parties…
1Opinion of the Court
Denio, Ch. J.
The appellants insist that the county court has no jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for the par tition of lands. In. Kundolf v. Thalheimer (2 Kern., 593), we determined that an action for an assault and battery was one over which that court had no jurisdiction, and the question is whether the present case falls within the principle of that decision. I am of opinion that it does not. The question depends upon the construction to be given to the provision of the constitution that “ the county court shall have such jurisdiction in special cases as the legislature may prescribe…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Davis v. . SpencerNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- McNiel v. BorlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Arnold v. . ReesNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Williston v. WillistonNew York Supreme Court · 1864
- The People v. . MainNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.