Woodworth v. Janes
New York Supreme Court
On the 6th May, 1799, the appellants filed their bill in the court of chancery against the respondents, setting forth, among other things, that the Connecticut Susquehannah *Company claim title to a tract of land, commonly called the Connecticut Susquehannah Company Purchase, situate in the counties of Northumberland, Northampton and Luzerne, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and within and under the jurisdiction of the said commonwealth ; that the claim of the state of…
Read the full summary
On the 6th May, 1799, the appellants filed their bill in the court of chancery against the respondents, setting forth, among other things, that the Connecticut Susquehannah *Company claim title to a tract of land, commonly called the Connecticut Susquehannah Company Purchase, situate in the counties of Northumberland, Northampton and Luzerne, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and within and under the jurisdiction of the said commonwealth ; that the claim of the state of Connecticut had been uniformly opposed and denied by the commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and that, in order to deter any…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was, in substance, as follows :
2Per curiam
This is to be regarded as a case of maintenance, in buying and selling a pretended title. The respondents, claiming under Connecticut, sold lands within the actual jurisdiction of Pennsylvania, and held adversely by that state. The respondents state'that both parties knew that a controversy existed between the different claimants under the two states ; and that in consequence *of such controversy the lands were quit-claimed, for 23 cents per acre, when they were, in fact, worth two dollars an acre. The prayer of the appellants is, that…
3Cases cited3 opinions
- Best v. StrongNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Merwin v. HuntingtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1817
- Rust v. GottNew York Supreme Court · 1828
4Cited by1 opinion
- Knapp v. River Raisin & Grand River RailroadMichigan Court of Chancery · 1842