Lansing v. Pine
New York Court of Chancery
This case came before the court, upon a demurrer to the complainant’s bill. The bill stated a purchase by the complainant, in January, 1788, from the commissioners of forfeitures, of an undivided half of the rent and reversion of lot No. 144 in Pittstown; supposed to have been forfeited by the attainder of Robert W. Leake.
Read the full summary
This case came before the court, upon a demurrer to the complainant’s bill. The bill stated a purchase by the complainant, in January, 1788, from the commissioners of forfeitures, of an undivided half of the rent and reversion of lot No. 144 in Pittstown; supposed to have been forfeited by the attainder of Robert W. Leake. That the complainant, at the time of the purchase, was informed the lot was in lease, but that never having seen the lease, he could not set forth • I°r wbat term the same was given, or what amount of rent was reserved thereon. That at the time of the purchase, or shortly…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The defendant was not bound to look beyond the copy of the bill served on his solicitor; and if that did not contain the necessary affidavit, or verification, to give the court jurisdiction, he had a right to demur to the bill on that ground. Here the objection of the want of an affidavit is distinctly made by the demurrer. The complainant, therefore, instead of noticing the demurrer for argument, should have examined the copy of the bill served on the defendant’s solicitor, and should have made it conformable to the bill on file, if that contains the requisite verification.
Inde…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Matter of RoussNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Hill v. RenoIllinois Supreme Court · 1883
- Casey v. ButtolphNew York Supreme Court · 1851
- Corbett v. De ComeauThe Superior Court of New York City · 1878
- Elmore v. HydeNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1877
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.