Jackson ex dem. Stansbury v. Farmer
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of ejectment, tried at the Cayuga circuit in January, 1830. The lessor of the- plaintiff, Stansbury, claimed to recover the premises in question, on the strength of a possession often years previous to the 1st May, 1829. It was proved that about the 1st May, 1829, the defendant entered the premises forcibly, and put the wife of Stansbury out of possession.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment, tried at the Cayuga circuit in January, 1830. The lessor of the- plaintiff, Stansbury, claimed to recover the premises in question, on the strength of a possession often years previous to the 1st May, 1829. It was proved that about the 1st May, 1829, the defendant entered the premises forcibly, and put the wife of Stansbury out of possession. The defendant gave in evidence a deed of the premises in -question from Stansbury to one Wyckoff, bearing date 14th September, 1820, and a conveyance from Wyckoff to himself, bearing date 21st April, 1829. This evidence…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Nelson, J.
It was decided by this court in Hyatt v. Wood, 4 Johns. R. 150, and the same principle was again applied in Ives v. Ives, 13 id. 235, that a person having a legal right of entry on land may enter by force, and though indictable for a breach of the peace at common law, or under the statute for a forcible entry and detainer, he is not liable to *202a private action of trespass for damages at the suit of the person in possession without right, and who is thus turned out of possession. This position, apparently harsh, and tending to the public disturbance and individual…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Reeder v. PurdyIllinois Supreme Court · 1866
- Low v. ElwellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Pendill v. Union Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Dustin v. CowdrySupreme Court of Vermont · 1851
- Sarah v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1872
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.