Jackson ex dem. Livingston v. Freer
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of ejectment, for land in Walton in Delaware county, and was tried at the Delaware circuit, before Mr. Justice Yates, on the 30th of June, 1818. The lessors of the plaintiff deduced a regular title, by descent, from Peter Van Brugh Livingston, the patentee, to lot No. 104. in the tract of land granted to Peter Van Brugh Livingston, Lawrence Kortright, and others.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of ejectment, for land in Walton in Delaware county, and was tried at the Delaware circuit, before Mr. Justice Yates, on the 30th of June, 1818. The lessors of the plaintiff deduced a regular title, by descent, from Peter Van Brugh Livingston, the patentee, to lot No. 104. in the tract of land granted to Peter Van Brugh Livingston, Lawrence Kortright, and others. The patent was dated the 14th of August, 1786, and passed the secretary’s office the 22d of September, 1789, and was introduced at the trial, with an exemplification of the map made under the direction of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Spencer, Ch. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court. The plaintiff’s counsel seem to suppose that the lessors of the plaintiff had a priority of title, and were, therefore, entitled, at all events, to have the complement of acres mentioned in the patent for lot No. 104. This is manifestly a mistake. The owners of the tract would have been tenants in common, but for the partition which took place between them. The patents were issued on the mutual agreement of those interested in the whole tract, to sever their common rights ; and thus the agreement was carried into complete effect. As between…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Sneed v. OsbornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Gwynn v. SchwartzWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1889
- Jackson ex dem. Erwin v. MooreNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Dolphin v. KlannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Turnbull v. SchroederSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.