Legal Opinion

People v. Runkle

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1811PublishedCited by 2 opinions

AN indictment, for a forcible entry and detainer, was found the 19th June, 1810, against the defendant, and John Runkle and John Bicker, since deceased, under the 3(* section of the “ act to prevent forcible entries and detainers.”

Read the full summary

AN indictment, for a forcible entry and detainer, was found the 19th June, 1810, against the defendant, and John Runkle and John Bicker, since deceased, under the 3(* section of the “ act to prevent forcible entries and detainers.” (Sess. 11. c. 6.) v y The indictment stated, that the trustees of the German reformed church in the city of Nexv-York, were seised in , . , . , their demesne, as ree-simple, or and in a certain church, situate, &c. and in a certain school-house, situate, &c. with the appurtenances, and so continued, until William ^un^e-> minister of the gospel, John Runkle,…

1Per curiam

The indictment states, that The Trustees oj the German Reformed Church, were seised of the *469church, until the forcible entry charged, and by which , .. . , _ , . , . they were disseised. It was, then, a material question, upon the trial, who were those trustees. If the persons who directed the church to be opened, and by whose permission the defendant entered, were the legal trustees, there was no force. This fact the defendant offered to show, and it was overruled. There was no evidence that the prosecutors were such trustees, or had actual possession of the church, at the time, except what…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Minturn v. BurrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  2. Banks v. MurraySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1820

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API