Van Winkle v. Constantine
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the superior court of the city of New-York. Ejectment for a lot on Ful ton-street. It was admitted that Jane Van Winkle, from whom both parties claimed to deduce their title, was seised in fee of the premises, on and before May 5,1760. She was the wife of John Van Winkle, and on the day last mentioned joined with him in the execution of a deed of the lot to Jacob Van Winkle, under whom the defendant claimed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the superior court of the city of New-York. Ejectment for a lot on Ful ton-street. It was admitted that Jane Van Winkle, from whom both parties claimed to deduce their title, was seised in fee of the premises, on and before May 5,1760. She was the wife of John Van Winkle, and on the day last mentioned joined with him in the execution of a deed of the lot to Jacob Van Winkle, under whom the defendant claimed. This deed is set out in full in the report of this case under the name of Constantine v. Van Winkle (6 Hill) 178), (where a new trial was ordered) except that the covenant for…
1Opinion of the CourtGardiner, J.
When this cause under the title of Constantine v. Van Winkle was before the court for the correction of errors, two questions were adjudicated, first that the deed of John Van Winkle and Jane, his wife, to Jacob Van Winkle of the 5th of May, 1760, was in form sufficient to convey all the right, title and interest of the grantors; and second, that it was valid and operative, without the acknowledgment of the wife ,to bind her and of course those subsequently claiming under her. It has been said that the copy of the deed submitted to the court of errors was different from the one produced…
2Cited by2 opinions
- In re Proving the Last Will & Testament of FarmerNew York Surrogate's Court · 1917
- Jennings v. Newman, New York County Courts1876