Jackson ex dem. Beekman v. Witter
New York Supreme Court
. This was an action of ejectment, for lands in Orange county. The cause was tried at the Orange circuit, on ^le 4th June, 1806, before Mr. Justice Tompkins. The plaintiff, in right of his wife, claimed -an undivi- . _ f . ded part of lot No. 33, m a tract of land called the angle Minisinckpatent, being the premises in question, un(]er Henry Van Ball.
Read the full summary
. This was an action of ejectment, for lands in Orange county. The cause was tried at the Orange circuit, on ^le 4th June, 1806, before Mr. Justice Tompkins. The plaintiff, in right of his wife, claimed -an undivi- . _ f . ded part of lot No. 33, m a tract of land called the angle Minisinckpatent, being the premises in question, un(]er Henry Van Ball. To show the right of Van Ball, the plaintiffs offered in evidence an exemplification of a map, under the great seal of the state, made of various lots in angle the said patent, among which is the lot No. 33, marked “ No. 33, Henry Van Ball, 1128…
1Per curiam
On the argument of the motion for a new trial in this case, several points were presented to the consideration of the court. We confine ourselves, however, to the first, which relates to the map of partition in 1769, which was offered and received as evidence of title and seisin in Henry Van Ball, under whom the lessors of the plaintiff make title to the premises in question. This map purports to have been made by commissioners appointed to make partition of certain lands, including the premises, pursuant to a colonial act of 1708. This was a mere ex parte proceeding. The commissioners had no…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Jackson v. MurrayNew York Supreme Court · 1809