Watson v. Hunter
New York Court of Chancery
THE bill stated! that the plaintiff had a deed in fee for the premises mentioned, under a declaration of trust, in favour of Samuel S. Haight, to be executed on payment of 1,668 dollars and 36 cents; to secure which payment, the fee of the land was vested in the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
THE bill stated! that the plaintiff had a deed in fee for the premises mentioned, under a declaration of trust, in favour of Samuel S. Haight, to be executed on payment of 1,668 dollars and 36 cents; to secure which payment, the fee of the land was vested in the plaintiff. That the defendants were in possession, under a lease for four years ; that the principal value of the land, as a security, consisted in the pine timber growing thereon! - That the defendants were committing great waste in the timber, and had already cut down large quantities of it, and were sawing it. at their mills, for…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
Injunctions to the extent prayed for may have been granted; but as I am not satisfied as to the propriety of .such extensive and summary interference, I have been led to look into the course of the English authorities and practice on the point. After timber is cut, it ceases to be part of the realty, and is converted into personal property, and trover will lie for it. The question is, whether this Court ought to interfere, in the first instance, to control the disposition of that personal property; and that, too, without any special or extraordinary necessity stated for such…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Lynch v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Cuppy v. WardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
- Mapleson v. Del PuenteThe Superior Court of New York City · 1883
- Chamberlain v. Childs' Unique Dairy Co.New York Supreme Court · 1907
- Lippincott v. BartonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1886
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.