Miller v. De Peyster
The Superior Court of New York City
Certain sums were due from the plaintiffs, to the owner of certain real estate for rents of the same. The title being in litigation, the plaintiffs filed bills of interpleader against the defendants, De Peyster and Van Rensselaer, who were the adverse claimants, at the same time paying into court the rents, or a large portion of them.
Read the full summary
Certain sums were due from the plaintiffs, to the owner of certain real estate for rents of the same. The title being in litigation, the plaintiffs filed bills of interpleader against the defendants, De Peyster and Van Rensselaer, who were the adverse claimants, at the same time paying into court the rents, or a large portion of them. A decree was entered in favor of the defendant, De Peyster, and adjudging that he and not the co-defendant, Van Rensselaer, was entitled to the rents, and adjudged the plaintiffs entitled to their costs in this suit, and also to their costs in several suits at…
1Opinion of the Court
*235By the Court.
Hoefmae, J.
By a decree of the general term of this court," made on the 11th of October, 1852, it was declared that the defendant, Yan Rensselaer, had no-title or interest in the funds referred to in the pleadings; but that the same belonged exclusively to the defendant, De Peyster, and that the claim set up by defendant, Yan Rensselaer, was totally unfounded and untrue. The decree declared a certain sum to be due from the plaintiff, Miller, to the defendant, De Peyster, for rent, and certain other sums from the other plaintiffs. A large part of the moneys so decreed to be due,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Everitt v. EverittSupreme Court of Delaware · 1958