Jackson ex dem. Bronck v. Crysler
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of ejectment, brought to recover certain premises in the possession of the defendant, situate in the town of Bethlehem, in the county of Albahy. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Benson, at the last sittings in Albany.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment, brought to recover certain premises in the possession of the defendant, situate in the town of Bethlehem, in the county of Albahy. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Benson, at the last sittings in Albany. It appeared that the lessor of the plaintiff by a deed, bearing date the 3d May, 1795, granted a tract of land,' including the premises, to Hendrick Bronck in fee, “ upon condition, nevertheless, that the said Hendrick Bronck, his heirs and assigns, should maintain the lessor of the plaintiff and his wife in a suitable manner, during their natural lives,…
1Per curiam
As -to the • first point, there was formerly much contrariety in the cases on this subject; but it seems to be settled by repeated decisions, (2 Ld. Raym. 750 1 Salk.. 250; S. C. 1 Vent. 248; 2: Vent 332; 3 Burr. 1897; Doug. 486,) for near a- century, that the confession of lease, entry, and ouster, is sufficient to maintain an ejectment for a condition broken, and that an actual entry is not necessary to be shown in any case, except to avoid a fine. •
As to the second point, it does not appear thát any fraud or concealment was practised by the lessor of the plaintiff to entrap the defendant.…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Lindsey v. LindseyIndiana Supreme Court · 1874
- Atlantic & Pacific Railroad v. MingusSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- City of Barnesville v. StaffordSupreme Court of Georgia · 1926
- Kerns v. McKeanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- City of New York v. Coney Island Fire DepartmentNew York Supreme Court · 1939
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.