Bradish v. Schenck

New York Supreme Court

Bradish v. Schenck

8 Johns. 151

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1811

StatusPublished

Cited by27 cases

This text of 8 Johns. 151 (Bradish v. Schenck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bradish v. Schenck, 8 Johns. 151 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Letting land upon shares, if for a single crop, is no lease of the land, and the owner alone must bring trespass for breaking the close. (Cro. Eliz. 143.) Schenck and Curtiss were tenants in common off the corn; but the omission to join Curtiss was only to be taken advantage of by pleading it in abatement. (1 Saund. 291. G.)

We ought to intend that the action of replevin was at "an end when this suit was brought, if we can take notice of it all. It was not pleaded, arid the only proof of. its existence was by parol.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Letting land upon shares, if for a single crop, is no lease of the land, and the owner alone must bring trespass for breaking the close. (Cro. Eliz. 143.) Schenck and Curtiss were tenants in common off the corn; but the omission to join Curtiss was only to be taken advantage of by pleading it in abatement. (1 Saund. 291. G.)

We ought to intend that the action of replevin was at "an end when this suit was brought, if we can take notice of it all. It was not pleaded, arid the only proof of. its existence was by parol.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Johns. 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradish-v-schenck-nysupct-1811.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack