Safford v. Hynds
New York Supreme Court
APPEALS from judgments rendered upon decisions of the judge at the circuit. These actions were all tried together, at the Schoharie circuit, hy consent, before Justice Hogeboom, without a jury. They all related to the title to a lot of land in Seward, Schoharie county.
Read the full summary
APPEALS from judgments rendered upon decisions of the judge at the circuit. These actions were all tried together, at the Schoharie circuit, hy consent, before Justice Hogeboom, without a jury. They all related to the title to a lot of land in Seward, Schoharie county. The first two actions were commenced in a justice’s court, for trespass on the lot, and title having been pleaded, they were continued in the supreme court, The third was ejectmént for said land, in which an equitable title was interposed as a defense; the defendant justifying under Alexander Crounse, the plaintiff. The fourth…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Miller J.
I. I think that the judge on the trial properly decided that Safford was rightfully in possession of the premises and could maintain trespass. Safford claimed possession under Grounse, who had an equitable title to the property. According to the judge’s decision (which I think there is sufficient evidence to sustain) the purchase at the foreclosure sale was made by Hynds as the agent of and for the benefit of Grounse, with money furnished mostly by Grounse and in part borrowed of Hynds. The title was taken in Hynds’ name without the consent of Grounse who was the real…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Day v. . RothNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Hosford v. MerwinNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Lounsbury v. PurdyNew York Supreme Court · 1851
- Norton v. StoneNew York Court of Chancery · 1840
- Reid v. FitchNew York Supreme Court · 1851
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Salomon v. MoralNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1877
- Platt v. BaldwinCity of New York Municipal Court · 1886