Denn ex rel. Gaston v. Mason

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Denn ex rel. Gaston v. Mason

1 N.J.L. 10

DecidedApril 15, 1790

StatusPublished

This text of 1 N.J.L. 10 (Denn ex rel. Gaston v. Mason) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Denn ex rel. Gaston v. Mason, 1 N.J.L. 10 (N.J. 1790).

Pincite

Opinion

Considered the instrument as sufficiently authenticated te go to the jury. Gravat's testimony proves the deed '.vas once executed by Neale, for he explicitly declares he should not have subscribed his name as a witness if Neale's name [11]*11ka.l then been obliterated. It is an important feature also la the case, that the possession has gone with the deed, and that the lessor of the plaintiff lay by until long after the death > ,f dhole. It is therefore a matter for the decision of the jury whether this obliteration has occurred accidentally and without the privity of defendant, or whether it was fraudulent and sufficient to vitiate the instrument.

Noth. — A bill of exceptions was tendered to the opinion of the lüourí, and the cause carried by Writ of Error to the High Court yf errors and appeals, where in November Term 1792. the judgment of the Supreme Court was reversed uná vocé. Note. — The evidence of the execution of the deed in this case, was similar to that offered in the case of Pigot v., Holloway, i Biuney 436. to prove a warrant of attorney. The court unanimously admitted the instrument.

Evidence Overruled.

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

Considered the instrument as sufficiently authenticated te go to the jury. Gravat's testimony proves the deed '.vas once executed by Neale, for he explicitly declares he should not have subscribed his name as a witness if Neale's name [11]*11ka.l then been obliterated. It is an important feature also la the case, that the possession has gone with the deed, and that the lessor of the plaintiff lay by until long after the death > ,f dhole. It is therefore a matter for the decision of the jury whether this obliteration has occurred accidentally and without the privity of defendant, or whether it was fraudulent and sufficient to vitiate the instrument.

Noth. — A bill of exceptions was tendered to the opinion of the lüourí, and the cause carried by Writ of Error to the High Court yf errors and appeals, where in November Term 1792. the judgment of the Supreme Court was reversed uná vocé. Note. — The evidence of the execution of the deed in this case, was similar to that offered in the case of Pigot v., Holloway, i Biuney 436. to prove a warrant of attorney. The court unanimously admitted the instrument.

Evidence Overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.J.L. 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denn-ex-rel-gaston-v-mason-nj-1790.