Benson v. Matsdorf
2 Johns. 370
Opinion
(stopping Tallmadge.) It is well settled,that the right to mesne profits is a uecessary consequence-' [371]*371of a recovery in ejectment 5 and the defendant could not. set up a title in bar, even if he clearly had a better title; It cannot be said, that the second trial ascertained which had the better right. A court of law has no power to put an end to the litigation of.parties in.ejectment^ in this way. ■ _
Judgment for the plaintiff
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Benson v. Matsdorf, 2 Johns. 370 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1807).
2 Johns. 370 (Benson v. Matsdorf) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hall v. Union Pac. R.
11 F. Cas. 268 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Iowa, 1875)
Chumasero v. Potts
2 Mont. 242 (Montana Supreme Court, 1875)
Sterrick v. Pugsley
22 F. Cas. 1313 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan, 1874)
Blake Crusher Co. v. Ward
3 F. Cas. 615 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan, 1874)
Chance v. Temple
1 Iowa 179 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1855)
Milliken v. Selye
3 Denio 54 (New York Supreme Court, 1846)
Parker v. Smith
6 Ill. 411 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1844)
Castle v. Matthews
1 Hill & Den. 438 (New York Supreme Court, 1844)
People v. Richardson
4 Cow. 97 (New York Supreme Court, 1825)
Withington v. Corey
2 N.H. 115 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1819)
Fish v. Weatherwax
2 Johns. Cas. 215 (New York Supreme Court, 1801)