Hubbell v. . Moulson
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department in favor of defendants, entered upon an order denying motion for a new trial and directing a judgment on verdict. This action was ejectment to recover possession of the undivided half of a lot of land situate in Brighton, Monroe county.. The facts appear sufficiently in the opinion. The court directed a verdict in favor of defendants, which was rendered accordingly.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department in favor of defendants, entered upon an order denying motion for a new trial and directing a judgment on verdict. This action was ejectment to recover possession of the undivided half of a lot of land situate in Brighton, Monroe county.. The facts appear sufficiently in the opinion. The court directed a verdict in favor of defendants, which was rendered accordingly. Exceptions were ordered heard in the first instance at General Term. Payment of the mortgage or tender of the amount due discharges…
1Opinion of the CourtAndrews, J.
The plaintiffs claim title under Alfred Hub-bell, the mortgagor, to the undivided half of premises mortgaged by him to Hiram Sibley, December 1,1846, to secure the payment of $7,000. The action is ejectment, and it was necessary for the plaintiffs, in order to recover under their complaint, to show that they were entitled, as against the defendants, to the possession of the premises at the time of the commencement of the action. The defendants are the grantees of Sibley, the mortgagee, under a deed dated June 7,1849, and are in possession, claiming under that deed. They stand, by reason of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Kortright v. . CadyNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Phyfe v. RileyNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Jackson ex. dem. Merrit v. BowenNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Robinson v. . RyanNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Parsons v. WellesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1821
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Mooney v. . ByrneNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Spect v. SpectCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Integrity Trust Co. v. St. Rita B. & L. Assn.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- United States Saving Fund & Investment Co. v. HarrisIndiana Supreme Court · 1895
- Kelso v. NortonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1902
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.