Delancy v. Seymour

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

Delancy v. Seymour

5 Cow. 714

CourtCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

DecidedDecember 15, 1825

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Cow. 714 (Delancy v. Seymour) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Delancy v. Seymour, 5 Cow. 714 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1825).

Pincite

Opinion

Woodworth, J., Savage, Ch. J. and Golden, Senator,

afterwards discussed the questions argued by counsel, giving their reasons at large to the Court for the opinions they had respectively formed. They all three differed from the Chancellor, and were for a reversal of the decrse; Wood-worth, J. and Golden, Senator, thinking the title, as reported by the master in the court below, sufficient; and that, therefore, there should be a decree for specific performance; and Savage, Ch. Justice, holding the title so doubtful, that the appellants ought not to be compelled to accept it, even though a jury should think it good.

Whereupon, a majority of the Court were for affirming the order of the Chancellor; and it was thereupon

Ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the decretal order appealed from, be, &c. affirmed; that the appellants pay to the respondent his costs in this court, to be taxed; nd that the record be remitted to the Court of Chancery, to the end that the decree might be carried into execuiion.

END OF DECEMBER TERM.

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

Woodworth, J., Savage, Ch. J. and Golden, Senator,

afterwards discussed the questions argued by counsel, giving their reasons at large to the Court for the opinions they had respectively formed. They all three differed from the Chancellor, and were for a reversal of the decrse; Wood-worth, J. and Golden, Senator, thinking the title, as reported by the master in the court below, sufficient; and that, therefore, there should be a decree for specific performance; and Savage, Ch. Justice, holding the title so doubtful, that the appellants ought not to be compelled to accept it, even though a jury should think it good.

Whereupon, a majority of the Court were for affirming the order of the Chancellor; and it was thereupon

Ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the decretal order appealed from, be, &c. affirmed; that the appellants pay to the respondent his costs in this court, to be taxed; nd that the record be remitted to the Court of Chancery, to the end that the decree might be carried into execuiion.

END OF DECEMBER TERM.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Cow. 714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delancy-v-seymour-nycterr-1825.