Jackson ex dem. Loop v. Harrington
New York Supreme Court
Ejectment, for part of military lot No. 43, in the town of Sempronius, in the county of Cayuga, tried at the c.ir*' cuit in that county, January 23d, 1827, before Throop, C T 1 Judge. On the trial, the plaintiff proved a patent from the state to one Schreeder for the whole lot.
Read the full summary
Ejectment, for part of military lot No. 43, in the town of Sempronius, in the county of Cayuga, tried at the c.ir*' cuit in that county, January 23d, 1827, before Throop, C T 1 Judge. On the trial, the plaintiff proved a patent from the state to one Schreeder for the whole lot. He then produced a witness who proved a deed in fee of the same lot from the patentee to C. Loop, the ancestor of the lessors of the. plaintiff, which was lost; By his (the ancestor’s) death, the title would have descended upon the lessors; but the same witness who proved the deed to their ancestor also proved by parol…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia, per Savage, Ch. J.
I am inclined to think the judge was right. The testimony of the plaintiff’s witness showed the existence of the deed ; and the bond, also being ' the plaintiff’s evidence, showed the title out of the lessors of the plaintiff.
It is said Jackson was but the trustee of Loop, and had not such a title as a stranger can set up. Whether the defendant was an intruder, or claiming title, does not appear. No evidence was produced by him. He had no opportunity of ^showing how he possessed, or under what claim, as the judge nonsuited the plaintiff.
But the question is not whether…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bartlett v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929
- In No. 85-5751Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986