Jackson ex dem. Shultze v. Goes
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of ejectment: brought to recover lot 39., in the town of Manlius, in the county of Onondaga* The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Yates, at the Onondaga circuit, 1X1'June, 1-8-16. ' . . - At the trial, the plaintiff produced in evidence letters patent, dated the i3th of September, 1790, by which, ift pursuance of an 1 ’ , ~1 act ot the legislature, passed the 6tn of ■ 9 } 1 * , « An act tocarry into effect the concurrent resolutions ancl acts , 0f…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of ejectment: brought to recover lot 39., in the town of Manlius, in the county of Onondaga* The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Yates, at the Onondaga circuit, 1X1'June, 1-8-16. ' . . - At the trial, the plaintiff produced in evidence letters patent, dated the i3th of September, 1790, by which, ift pursuance of an 1 ’ , ~1 act ot the legislature, passed the 6tn of ■ 9 } 1 * , « An act tocarry into effect the concurrent resolutions ancl acts , 0f legislature for granting certain tends, promised to be ilj 1790; entitled gjven as bounty lands, and for other purposes,…
1Opinion of the Court
P.LATT, J.,
was of opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled, to recover, and thought the ease clearly distinguishable from that of Jackson, ex. dem. Houseman, v. Hart the principle of which decision he held to be sound law.
Yates, J., and Van Ness, J., declared themselves to be of the same opinion.
2Cited by12 opinions
- Hatcher v. . RocheleauNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Jackson ex dem. Bogert v. KingNew York Supreme Court · 1825
- Williams v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1859
- Jennings v. Newman, New York County Courts1876
- McClaskey v. BarrU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1891
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.