Jackson ex dem. Rowley & Smith v. Kinney
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of ejectment, brought to recover lot No. ’n die town °f Homer, in the county of Courtlandt, and was tried before his honour the Chief Justice, at the Courtlandt Circuit, in 1816. The plaintiff’s lessors claimed under a patent granted in 1791, to one William Rullins, and produced two witnesses, Swartwout and S^erzbood, to show that William Rullins, and William ley, of whom one of the lessors of the plaintiff was the son and 1 heir, were the same person, and…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of ejectment, brought to recover lot No. ’n die town °f Homer, in the county of Courtlandt, and was tried before his honour the Chief Justice, at the Courtlandt Circuit, in 1816. The plaintiff’s lessors claimed under a patent granted in 1791, to one William Rullins, and produced two witnesses, Swartwout and S^erzbood, to show that William Rullins, and William ley, of whom one of the lessors of the plaintiff was the son and 1 heir, were the same person, and that he had served as a private during the revolutionary war. At the trial, a verdict was found f°r plaintiff, which…
1Per curiam
This is an application for a new trial, on the ground of surprise and newly-discovered evidence. The newly-discovered evidence is for the purpose of impeaching the character of one of the witnesses examined on the part of the plaintiff. As a general rule, we have refused granting new trials on this ground. We have, however, repeatedly, in trials concerning the military lots, been more liberal in granting new trials, owing to the obscurity and multifarious frauds attendant upon those titles ; and especially, when the question turns upon the identity of the soldier from whom the title is…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Platt v. MunroeNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- State v. CarrSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1850
- Jackson ex dem. Gorman v. HookerNew York Supreme Court · 1825