Jackson ex dem. Anderson v. M'Leod
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of ejectment for a lot of land in New* v burgh, and was tried at the Orange circuit, in August, 1814= The premises were purchased by the lessors, at a sheriff’s sale, and the deed of the sheriff to them, dated the 1st of January, 1810, was produced, as well as the execution, under which the sale was made.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of ejectment for a lot of land in New* v burgh, and was tried at the Orange circuit, in August, 1814= The premises were purchased by the lessors, at a sheriff’s sale, and the deed of the sheriff to them, dated the 1st of January, 1810, was produced, as well as the execution, under which the sale was made. A witness testified, that on the 1st of May, 1810, jndcrson. and the defendant, informed him, that the defendant e , ’ had hired the premises in question from A. for one year for the sum of 100 dollars. The defendant desired security from A. that he should not suffer, in…
1Per curiam
The motion for a new trial in this cause must be denied. The defendant entered into the possession as tenant to the lessors of the plaintiff, under an agreement for the premises for one year, at $100 rent. The agreement is fully established, and it is necessarily to be inferred, that the *183defendant entered- under this agreement, for it was on the same day, or the day after it was made,' that he took possession. This was in the spring of the year, 1810; and he has continued in possession ever since. No notice to quit was necessary; there is no evidence of any payment of rent, nor of any act…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Tyler v. DavisTexas Supreme Court · 1884
- Jackson ex dem. Church v. MillerNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Young v. AlgeoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Berry v. JagoeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1907
- Russell v. FabyanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1856
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.