Miller v. Watson
New York Supreme Court
A NEW trial was granted in this case, in October term, 1825, on grounds contained in the report of the case, (5 Qowen, 195.) It was afterwards carried down to trial, and . y . 7 the plaintiff nonsuited on an offer to prove his case as there rePorte5j with the additional fact, that the- plaintiff gave up all defence to an ejectment brought against him at the de£en(£ant)g warrantor’s) request; surrendered possessjon an¿ struck the balance as stated • in that case, which 7 7…
Read the full summary
A NEW trial was granted in this case, in October term, 1825, on grounds contained in the report of the case, (5 Qowen, 195.) It was afterwards carried down to trial, and . y . 7 the plaintiff nonsuited on an offer to prove his case as there rePorte5j with the additional fact, that the- plaintiff gave up all defence to an ejectment brought against him at the de£en(£ant)g warrantor’s) request; surrendered possessjon an¿ struck the balance as stated • in that case, which 7 7 see. The difference between the two cases will farther" appear by the opinion of the court, 47 -* A motion was made in…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia, per Sutherland, J.
The evidence offered by the plaintiff was essentially different from anything that *appeared upon the former trial; and I think ought to have been received. In that case, (5 Cowen, 295,) there, was nothing to support the promise of the defendant, but his admission that his title to the lot had failed. There was no evidence that, in consequence of that promise and admission, the plaintiff had surrendered the possession of the lot; or had been damnified in any other way. For aught that appeared, he might, at the time of the trial, have been in the peaceable and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pitcher v. LivingstonNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Stoddard v. MixSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1840
- Brown v. SloanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Rice v. BixlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Barton v. WellsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
3Cited by5 opinions
- Young v. . HillNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Blakesley v. WolfordCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986
- MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company, Us Sprint Communications Company Limited Partnership, Itt Communications Services, Inc., Competitive Telecommunications Association, Independent Data Communications Manufacturers Association, Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, Intervenors. Us Sprint Communications Company Limited Partnership v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company, Itt Communications Services, Inc., Competitive Telecommunications Association, Independent Data Communications Manufacturers Association, Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, Intervenors. Independent Data Communications Manufacturers Association, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Us Sprint Communications Company Limited Partnership, MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company, Itt Communications Services, Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Competitive Telecommunications Association, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Intervenors. Independent Data Communications Manufacturers Association, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Us Sprint Communications Company Limited Partnership, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Inc., Michigan Bell Telephone Company, the Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (Ameritech Operating Companies), MCI Telecommunications Corporation, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, International Business MacHines Corporation, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Intervenors. Williams Telecommunications Group, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Independent Data Communications Manufacturers Association, Inc., Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, Us Sprint Communications Company Limited Partnership, International Business MacHines Corporation, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, IntervenorsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1990
- Scott v. HawsmanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio · 1840
- Lois Strawser Joyce Perry James H. Sheppard Mary Jean Booth Joyce D. Barker Betty Jean Gilman Kathy Robertson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Nancy v. Atkins, in Her Capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Medical Services, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources Darrell W. Peters, in His Capacity as Supervisor, Third Party Liability Office of Administration, Accounts Receivable Unit of the Bureau for Medical Services, West Virginia Department of Health and Medical Services, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources Paul L. Nusbaum, in His Capacity as Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources Darrell v. McGraw in His Capacity as Attorney General of the State of West Virginia Citibank, N.A., Escrow Agent, Stephen Albert Joseph, Jr. Selma Charlene Hatfield Howard S. Miller Annie Sams Mosteller David Kay Mullins Mamie Brewer Brenda Carson, Personal Representative of the Estate of Bondale Carson Miller Margaret Renee Fleming, Personal Representative of the Estate of Earnestine Fleming Laura Kelly, Personal Representative of the Estate of Elizabeth McAbee Alford Welborn, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Charles M. Condon, in His Official Capacity as South Carolina Attorney General Citibank, N.A. William A. Prince, in His Official Capacity as Director of South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, and Chase Manhattan Bank (Usa), N.A., in Its Official Capacity as Escrow Agent, Hilda White the Estate of Robert Cornelison, by and Through Personal Representative, Helen Forte Maude C. Strickland the Estate of Robert W. Eltz, by and Through Personal Representative, Nellie Eltz the Estate of Marvin King, by and Through Personal Representative, Donna King the Estate of Maggie Irving, by and Through Personal Representative, Wanda Jones the Estate of Annis E. Messer, by and Through Personal Representative, Charles Messer Deborah Morey the Estate of Hester Heatherly, by and Through Personal Representative, Carroll Heatherly v. Michael F. Easley, Governor, in His Official Capacity as Governor of North Carolina John Doe, in His Official Capacity as Tobacco Escrow Agent for the State of North Carolina Richard H. Moore, in His Official Capacity as Treasurer of North Carolina Carmen Hooker Buell, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services Nina M. Yeager, in Her Official Capacity as Director of the Division of Medical Assistance the Golden L.E.A.F. (Long-Term Economic Advancement Foundation), Inc., a North Carolina Nonprofit CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002