Loomis v. Semper
New York Supreme Court
Action to compel the determination of a claim to real prop* irty, pursuant to the provisions of the Code, section 1638, etc.
1Opinion of the CourtMerwin, J.
The complaint is, I think, sufficient, under section 1639 of the Code as construed in King v. Townshend, 78 Hun, 380, and Phillips v. R., W. & O. R. R. Co., 30 N. Y. St. Repr. 41.
The plaintiff shows conveyance to her of the property by Inez D. Oney on May 22, 1897, and possession by the plaintiff since. Mrs. Oney was apparently in possession from July 31, 1893, at which date the property was conveyed to her by William O. Palmer.
In the complaint it is stated that the claim of defendant is under an alleged sale for unpaid taxes, assessed against Harry Oney, and a certificate of tax sale of 1895…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. . HagadornNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Mygatt v. . CoeNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Jewell v. . Van SteenburghNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Burnham v. . OnderdonkNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Redfield v. Utica & Syracuse Rail RoadNew York Supreme Court · 1851
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dodd v. BoenigNew York Supreme Court · 1921
- French v. City of New RochelleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910