Jackson ex dem. Jadwin v. Joy
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of ejectment for land, in Scaghticoke, being part of lot No. 40. in the Hosick patent. The cause was tried at the Rensselaer circuit, in September, 1809, before Mr. Justice Van Ness. The following are the material facts in the case. Bleecker's map of partition, and field book of the survey of the Hosick patent, made in 1754, were produced at the trial. The plaintiff proved title to lot No. 40. in that patent.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of ejectment for land, in Scaghticoke, being part of lot No. 40. in the Hosick patent. The cause was tried at the Rensselaer circuit, in September, 1809, before Mr. Justice Van Ness. The following are the material facts in the case. Bleecker's map of partition, and field book of the survey of the Hosick patent, made in 1754, were produced at the trial. The plaintiff proved title to lot No. 40. in that patent. Evert Van Alem, a witness, surveyed lot No. 41. under which the defendant claimed title to the premises. By this line, the premises in question were included in lot…
1Per curiam
The premises lie in lot No. 40. which belongs' ¿o the lessor of the plaintiff. The defendant* who claims under title to lot No. 41. contends, that the line run by Bleecker, as the division line between those lots, terminated at the pine tree. But the line must be continued to the river, and the testimony fully establishes a continuation of a line of marked trees. Bleecker’s map has never been considered as conclusive, in opposition to the true lines, founded upon his actual survey. In all the cases, hitherto before the court, respecting the Hosick patent, the map and the survey of Bleecker…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Brown v. LipscombSupreme Court of Alabama · 1839
- Bowen v. GuildMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- Dyche v. Gass' LesseeTennessee Supreme Court · 1832
- Cox's Lessee v. PeckTennessee Supreme Court · 1832