Jackson v. Hunt
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of ejectment for land, being part of lot No. 21. in Hosick patent. The cause was tried at the Rensselaer circuit, in September, 1809. It was admitted, that the title to the premises was in the lessors, and that the plaintiff must recover, unless those under whom he claimed had done some act- by which he was concluded.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of ejectment for land, being part of lot No. 21. in Hosick patent. The cause was tried at the Rensselaer circuit, in September, 1809. It was admitted, that the title to the premises was in the lessors, and that the plaintiff must recover, unless those under whom he claimed had done some act- by which he was concluded. The defendant proved, that one Peter Lantman entered on the premises, in question in the year -1779, or about that time, as tenant to Garrit Van Sante, and that he, and those claiming under him, had been in possession ever since. An aged witness testified,…
1Per curiam
Lantman entered under Fan Sante,
who claimed the land as .his own, for he tells Brott that he was mistaken in thinking the land to be his, and that Lantman must go and live there. The letter of Van Sante, if it had any effect, only suspended the operation of the statute of limitations .during the war. Before 1783, Fan Sante claimed and possessed the land as his own; and the statute of limitations had run out before the commencement of this suit. Judgment must be rendered for the defendant.
Judgment for the defendant.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Starr v. MooreU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1844
- Young v. ShookSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833