Livingston v. Livingston
New York Court of Chancery
THE bill stated, that the plaintiff was seised and possessed, by himself and his tenants, of a tract of land in the manor of Livingston, being part of great lot No. 4, in the town of Livingston, and lying to the north and west of Rule-ff Janse’s Kill.
Read the full summary
THE bill stated, that the plaintiff was seised and possessed, by himself and his tenants, of a tract of land in the manor of Livingston, being part of great lot No. 4, in the town of Livingston, and lying to the north and west of Rule-ff Janse’s Kill. That he derived title by the will of his father; which he set forth, and the title, as far back as 1728. That the defendant has, in his own right, and in right of his wife, a number of tenants, in the town of Clermont; and they, by authority derived from or under him, had, shortly before filing the bill, entered upon the land of the plaintiff,…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
This is not the case of a stranger entering upon the land, as a trespasser, without pretence of right, and cutting down timber. In such a case, Lord Thurlow, in Mogg v. Mogg, (Dickens’ Rep. 670.) refused to interfere by injunction. This is analogous to a case before Lord Camden, referred to by the counsel in Mogg v. *499Mogg, and which Lord Tkurlow seemed to approve ot. It was, where a defendant claimed a right to estovers, and, under that right, cut down timber; there was a claim of right, and, until it was determined, it was proper to stay the party from doing an act, which, if…
2Cited by37 opinions
- Poyer v. Village of Des PlainesIllinois Supreme Court · 1887
- Cullman Property Co. v. H. H. Hitt Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Harrington v. St. Paul & Sioux City RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
- Lyon v. HuntSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847
- Buskirk v. KingCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1896
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.