Storring v. Borren
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of ejectment, commenced in October, 1861, to recover tho undivided fourth part of one hundred (100) acres of land, lying in Deerfield, Oneida county, by the plaintiffs as the heirs at law of Henry A. Storring, their deceased father, and to which Henry A. Storring claimed title under the following clause of the will of his father, Adam Storring, which was executed on the 4th day of June, 1812, to wit : “I give and bequeath unto my well beloved wife FTelly,…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of ejectment, commenced in October, 1861, to recover tho undivided fourth part of one hundred (100) acres of land, lying in Deerfield, Oneida county, by the plaintiffs as the heirs at law of Henry A. Storring, their deceased father, and to which Henry A. Storring claimed title under the following clause of the will of his father, Adam Storring, which was executed on the 4th day of June, 1812, to wit : “I give and bequeath unto my well beloved wife FTelly, all my real and personal property after my decease, during her natural life, if she remains my widow, and after her…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Foster, J.
I think the findings of the referee are supported by the evidence. The testimony shows that, in the same year that his father died, Henry Storring left home and went to Joel Falkner’s, and remained with him some five years, and there learned the trade of a miller, an employment which it is proved he followed at several places, for several years thereafter. The plaintiffs introduced in evidence the agreement of the 18th of May, 1817, between his three brothers, which made provision for paying him the $100 mentioned in the will. It is true that this would not have" been…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Alexander v. HillSupreme Court of Alabama · 1889
- Arthur v. NelsonNew York Surrogate's Court · 1882