Byrne v. Van Hoesen

5 Johns. 66
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1809
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 5 Johns. 66 (Byrne v. Van Hoesen) 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
Byrne v. Van Hoesen, 5 Johns. 66 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1809).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Here was enough shown to maintain the action. The former husband of Polly Byrne died in possession of the locus in quo, and that possession had been transmitted to him from his ancestors. He left three infant children, who are still minors j and on his death his widow entered into possession, and has retained it ever since. Her possession was sufficient to maintain trespass. But the intendment of law is, that she is in possession by right, and entered as guardian in socage to her children, as her entry and perception of the profits have not been accompanied with any acts or declarations inconsistent with that character. (3 Cruise’s Dig. 411. 3Wils. 516. 1 Johns. Rep. 163.) This guardianship ceases when the infant arrives at the age of fourteen, so far as to entitle the infant to enter and take the land to himself; and yet, if no other guardian succeeds, this will continue. (Litt. s. 123. Andr. 313.)

The guardian in this case being married to the other plaintiff, the suit was properly brought in their joint [68]*68names; for the husband must join with the wife in her suits.

There is no ground, therefore, to set aside the verdict, and the motion is denied.

Rule refused..

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

Related

Boyer v. Anduiza
175 P. 853 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1918)
Boyer v. . East
56 N.E. 114 (New York Court of Appeals, 1900)
Gallagher v. David Stevenson Brewing Co.
34 N.Y.S. 94 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1895)
Koke v. Balken
25 N.Y.S. 1038 (New York Supreme Court, 1893)
Matter of Application of Mary E. Hynes
12 N.E. 60 (New York Court of Appeals, 1887)
Seward v. Didier
16 Neb. 58 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1884)
Kinney v. Harrett
8 N.W. 708 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1881)
Emerson v. Spicer
55 Barb. 428 (New York Supreme Court, 1869)
McGinty v. Mabry
23 Ala. 672 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1853)
Porter v. Bleiler
17 Barb. 149 (New York Supreme Court, 1853)
Tufts v. Tufts
24 F. Cas. 288 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1847)
Putnam v. Ritchie
6 Paige Ch. 390 (New York Court of Chancery, 1837)
Snook ex dem. Coursen v. Sutton
10 N.J.L. 157 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1828)
Merwin v. Camp
3 Conn. 35 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1819)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Johns. 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrne-v-van-hoesen-nysupct-1809.