Jackson ex dem. Potan v. Hoag
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of ejectment. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, upon the following case, with liberty to either party to turn the same into a special verdict.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of ejectment. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, upon the following case, with liberty to either party to turn the same into a special verdict. Johannis Van Der Hoyden, deceased, was seised in J ... fee of the premises in question, and on the 12th of - . •nit . March, 1771, by wtll, duly executed, devised his estate, ot which the premises were a part,, ta his children, “ John, Mary, (the lessor of the plaintiff,) Rachel and Jane, their heirs and assigns, for ever, as tenants in common; and if any of them should die without lawful…
1Per curiam
As the lessor of the plaintiff was never taken, in the suit against the heirs and devisees of her father, the judgment and execution could not affect her separate estate, nor her person. She was a tenant in common with the other heirs, in the lands devised by her father; but her share of the estate could not be sold under that judgment. It was a separate, and not a joint estate. This is the restriction in the act* (Laws, vol. 1. 353.) authorizing proceedings against joint debtors, when all are not taken; and, independent of this statute, a plaintiff cannot proceed against a debtor not taken,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Purdy v. DoyleNew York Court of Chancery · 1829
- Schermerhorn v. BarhydtNew York Court of Chancery · 1841
- Hutchinson v. StilesSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1826