Brewster v. Striker
New York Court of Common Pleas
These were actions of ejectment brought to recover certain premises situate in the city and county of New York, consisting of a farm at Bloomingdale and two houses and lots in the city, of which the defendant was alleged to he seized in fee.
Read the full summary
These were actions of ejectment brought to recover certain premises situate in the city and county of New York, consisting of a farm at Bloomingdale and two houses and lots in the city, of which the defendant was alleged to he seized in fee. The plaintiff claimed as purchaser at a sheriff’s sale, of all the interest which the defendant, Garrit H. Striker, had in the premises at the time of the recovery of the judgment under which the sheriff sold, to wit, on the 14th day of February, 1840. It was shown on the part of the plaintiff, that at the time of the recovery of the judgment, the…
1Opinion of the CourtDaly, J.
To enable a plaintiff in ejectment to recover, he must have a valid and subsisting interest in the premises claimed. (2 Rev. Statutes, 400, § 3, 3d edit.) And he is bound to specify in his declaration the nature of that interest: whether he claims in fee, for his own life, the life of another, or for a term of years, specifying such lives or the duration of such term. (2 Rev. Stat. 3d edit. 401, § 10.) The plaintiff claims the premises in fee, and he may recover, if it appear that Striker had such an estate on the 14th day of February, 1840. If an estate in fee existed in Striker at that…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Ricard v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1822
- Jackson ex dem' Klein v. GrahamNew York Supreme Court · 1805
- Day v. AlversonNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Cooper v. GalbraithU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania · 1819
- G. H. & E. Striker v. MottNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.