Bradstreet v. Supervisors of Oneida
New York Supreme Court
The demandant brought a writ of right for recovery of certain premises situate in the county of Oneida, and counted that she was seized in her demense as of fee within 25 years by taking the esplees, &c.
Read the full summary
The demandant brought a writ of right for recovery of certain premises situate in the county of Oneida, and counted that she was seized in her demense as of fee within 25 years by taking the esplees, &c. The defendants put in two pleas : in the first they join the mise, by putting themselves upon the grand assize to determine which has the better right; arid then tender two dollars to the use of the people, that it may be inquired by the grand assize whether the demandant was seized, &c. The second plea is, that the demandant is an alien,- born in foreign parts, to wit, &c., and concludes…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Savage, Ch. J.
The first plea is bad for the cause assigned. The tender of the demimark has no application to our practice, as was shown in Ten Eyck v. Water*547bury, 7 Cowen, 52. Our records ought not to be encumbered with such absurdities. The defendants might with equal propriety have claimed a trial by battle, and tendered their champión ; both were once the practice in England, but never in this state. There is indeed this difference: the trial by bat-tie has been abolished by statute; the demimark has not been so abolished, because it was totally inapplicable, under our form of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fairfax's v. Hunter's LesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1813
3Cited by9 opinions
- De Merle v. MathewsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- People ex rel. Attorney-General v. FolsomCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
- Territory of Montana v. LeeMontana Supreme Court · 1874
- Guyer v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1864
- Doe on Dem. of Rouche v. WilLiamsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1842
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.