Leyman v. Abeel
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of trespass for breaking and entering in' the subdivision of the plaintiff’s close, being lot No. 7. lot No. 14, in the second division of the Catskill patent. In 1688, the tract of land, called the Catskill patent, was granted to Martin G. Van Bergen, in fee, and Elizabeth Van Dyck, for life, remainder to her three children by her former husband, S. Salisbury, in fee.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of trespass for breaking and entering in' the subdivision of the plaintiff’s close, being lot No. 7. lot No. 14, in the second division of the Catskill patent. In 1688, the tract of land, called the Catskill patent, was granted to Martin G. Van Bergen, in fee, and Elizabeth Van Dyck, for life, remainder to her three children by her former husband, S. Salisbury, in fee. In 1758, Garrit Van Bergen, the eldest son and heir of the patentee, M. G. Van Bergen, died, leaving five children and a grandchild, who was the daughter of one of his children, then deceased, and having made…
1Opinion of the Court
Shephard,
(Touchs. 238.) says, that if a common in gross, and without number, be granted to a man and his heirs, it seems this is not grantable over to another. This opinion maybe-questioned; but the decision in the case of Lord Mountjoy is undoubted law: for the right to cut wood and *33take stone, is intended to be a personal right, and although descendible and alienable, it never could be enlarged by the grantor in such a way as to defeat the intention of the devisor, by imparting the entire right to several persons, to be enjoyed by each.
Coke (Co. Lilt. 165. a.) puts the case, by inquiring…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Ruddick v. Otis & SnowSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871
- Stanton v. T. L. Herbert & SonsTennessee Supreme Court · 1918
- Grubb v. BayardU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1851