Stuyvesant v. Tompkins
New York Supreme Court
THIS cause came before the court, by a writ of error, from the mayor’s court of the city of New-York. Tompkins and Dunham, the defendants in error, brought an action of trespass quare clausum fregil, against Stuyvesant. The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Read the full summary
THIS cause came before the court, by a writ of error, from the mayor’s court of the city of New-York. Tompkins and Dunham, the defendants in error, brought an action of trespass quare clausum fregil, against Stuyvesant. The defendant pleaded not guilty. From the bill of exceptions, taken at the trial, in the court below, it appeared that the plaintiffs were seised m tee ot a certain piece of land, in the 8 th ward of the city oí New-York, and that the defendant was also seised of another piece of land, adjoin-ins the land of the plaintiffs. At the time of the supposed trespass, there was a…
1Per curiam
The charge of the recorder was incorrect,' for the facts in this case clearly show that the plaintiffs below were not entitled to an action of trespass. The party must have actual and lawful possession of real property, to enable him to maintain trespass, and the plaintiffs below had not such possession. Their entry was, of itself, an act of trespass. The land owned by the parties respectively, was separated by a crooked fence, and the defendant below showed to one of the plaintiffs the two ends of the fence, as the extreme points of the boundary line between *63them, and declared that the true…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Baldwin v. . BrownNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Grube v. WellsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871
- Brown v. BridgesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
- Ainslie v. Mayor of New-YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Keator v. DimmickNew York Supreme Court · 1865
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.