Cuyler v. Bradt
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
THE appellant’s bill in the court of Chancery set forth: 1st. A patent of the 2d June, 1688, to Van Rensselner, Van Cortlandt, Van Ness, and G. T. Van Vechten for the land called Hosick ; and, That no tenancy in common being expressed, the estate at law was of course-m joii7t-tenancy. " 2d.
Read the full summary
THE appellant’s bill in the court of Chancery set forth: 1st. A patent of the 2d June, 1688, to Van Rensselner, Van Cortlandt, Van Ness, and G. T. Van Vechten for the land called Hosick ; and, That no tenancy in common being expressed, the estate at law was of course-m joii7t-tenancy. " 2d. The will of G. T. Van Vechten of the 12th March, 1703-4, devising his farm, See. and all his residuary real estate, to his sons, Johannes and Vilchert, as tenants in common, in equal parts. 3d. The deaths of Van Rensselaer and G. T. Van Vechten, before severance of the joint-tenancy. 4th. A conveyance…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam, delivered by Benson, J.
As to the' question of fact above stated, it is not requisite t© ‘ say more, than that the evidence at least prepon-' derates in favour of the supposition, that the conveyance of the 30th October, 1741, although there might have been some pecuniary confederation for it, as from Brees, Bradt and Van Beuren, yet, that the greater inducement or consideration as from Johannes, xyas relationship. This rendered it more a gift than a sale. It appears, that Brees, Bradt and Van Beuren then knew of the will of G. T. Van Vechten, and of the conveyance from the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Clapp v. ByrnesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Pratt v. HackettNew York Supreme Court · 1810
- McKenna v. Brooklyn Union Elevated RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904