Jackson v. Middleton
New York Supreme Court
1YFTT8 was an. action to compel the determination of the . defendant’s claim to land in Brooklyn. On the first trial, before J. F. Barnard, J. the defendant recovered a judgment declaring that he was the owner of the land claimed by him, and in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed.
Read the full summary
1YFTT8 was an. action to compel the determination of the . defendant’s claim to land in Brooklyn. On the first trial, before J. F. Barnard, J. the defendant recovered a judgment declaring that he was the owner of the land claimed by him, and in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed. The following facts were in evidence and were found by the judge who tried the cause : In 1832, Samuel Jackson was seised of a tract of land in the city of Brooklyn, called the hay scale farm, including the premises in question, and conveyed the same to John Jackson, for and during his natural life,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, J. F. Barnard, J.
It was decided by this court, in Moore v. Littel, (40 Barb. 488,) that the children of John Jackson, during his lifetime, had an alienable contingent estate in remainder in the lands in question in this action; that such children, at the death of their father, took a fee simple as purchasers under the deed from Samuel Jackson to John Jackson. The court at circuit fell into an error in supposing that an estate in expectancy, which could be aliened, might also be sold on execution. The statute is not broad enough to include future estates in expectancy among those…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Moore v. LittelNew York Supreme Court · 1863
3Cited by6 opinions
- Haward v. PeaveyIllinois Supreme Court · 1889
- Nichols v. GuthrieTennessee Supreme Court · 1902
- In re McKennaDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1881
- Clark v. GroshNew York Supreme Court · 1913
- In re BartlesNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1880
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.