Ely v. Ballantine

7 Wend. 470
New York Supreme Court·Decided November 17, 1831·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

Sutherland, J.

The counts moved to be stricken out may be necessary to enable the plaintiff to recover, and must be retained. If not retained, the recovery may be defeated by shewing a conveyance out of Ely, the plaintiff named in the first count; and although there cannot be a re[471]*471covery in the names of the persons stated as plaintifis in the counts asked to be stricken out, if at the time of the conveyanee to them the premises were held adversely, still if named as plaintifis, and adverse possession is insisted on as rendering the conveyances to them inoperative, there can be a recovery in the name of Ely ; for the title, if not passed to his grantees? remains in him.

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

Ely v. Ballantine, 7 Wend. 470 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1831).

7 Wend. 470 (Ely v. Ballantine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chamberlain v. . Taylor
92 N.Y. 348 (New York Court of Appeals, 1883)
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel v. Hartland
22 F. Cas. 753 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1874)
People v. Mayor of New York
28 Barb. 240 (New York Supreme Court, 1858)
People v. Mayor
8 Abb. Pr. 7 (New York Supreme Court, 1858)