Sharp v. Pratt
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of ejectment, tried at the Greene circuit, in April, 1834, before the Hon. James Vanderpoel, one of the circuit judges. The plaintiff’s showed title in themselves to an equal undivided one-sixth part of a lot known as No. 43, in great lot No. 20, of the Hardenbergh patent.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment, tried at the Greene circuit, in April, 1834, before the Hon. James Vanderpoel, one of the circuit judges. The plaintiff’s showed title in themselves to an equal undivided one-sixth part of a lot known as No. 43, in great lot No. 20, of the Hardenbergh patent. One fourth of the title of the plaintiff’s.was under a deed given by two executors of the last will and testament of Nicholas ICiersted, executed 13th May, 1795. Kiersted, by his will, appointed four executors, and authorized them to sell his real estate, which he had devised to his children. It was…
1Per curiam
The questions now presented are of course the same as those decided by the circuit judge, and which were excepted to by the defendant’s counsel, who now insists, first, that the deed from the two executors was invalid, the renunciation of the other two not having been shown; and, second, that the plaintiffs are barred from a recovery in consequence of Clarke's owning in severalty by force of the decree in the partition suit. Both these questions depend upon the statutes. As to the first, it is enacted by the 11th section of the act concerning wills, 1 R. L. 366, § 11, that where any lands,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Roseboom v. MosherNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Clark v. HornthalMississippi Supreme Court · 1872
- Bunner v. StormNew York Court of Chancery · 1844
- Trustees of Putnam Free School v. FisherSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1849
- Striker v. DalyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.