Belding v. Pitkin
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit, tried before the Chief Justice, at the Columbia circuit, in July, 1803. The declaration contained the common money counts, and a count for work, labor and services, under which it was agreed that the plaintiff might offer evidence of a special contract.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, tried before the Chief Justice, at the Columbia circuit, in July, 1803. The declaration contained the common money counts, and a count for work, labor and services, under which it was agreed that the plaintiff might offer evidence of a special contract. The defendant’s testator was possessed of a grant from the Susquehannah commissioners, so called, for a township ol land in the county of Luzerne, and commonwealth of Pennsylvania, under the Connecticut title only. He contracted with the plaintiff, that if he would sell this for him, he would give for so…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
We think the plaintiff’s demand cannot be supported. Although the caso is somewhat obscurely drawn, we assume, as facts admitted, that the claim possessed by the testator, Pitkin, to the township of land in Luzerne county, in Pennsylvania, was nothing more than what is usually called the Connecticut claim, and that there was an adverse possession under the Pennsylvania title, at the time of the sale made to Maxwell. In this we are warranted, because the counsel on the argument *have so considered the case. Under this statement, the sale to Maxwell was illegal, and would fall under the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Brooks v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 1864
- Clarke v. Lincoln Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
- In re ComstockDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1874
- Patton v. GilmerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1868
- Hunt v. KnickerbackerNew York Supreme Court · 1810
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.