Executors of Dubois v. Van Orden

New York Supreme Court

Executors of Dubois v. Van Orden

6 Johns. 105

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1810

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 6 Johns. 105 (Executors of Dubois v. Van Orden) 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

Executors of Dubois v. Van Orden, 6 Johns. 105 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1810).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The three first causes of demurrer are frivolous. The last is the only one that merits any attention. The declaration was taken from 1 Richardson’s Practice, C. B. 329. a book of approved precedents, and it is, no doubt, according to the usual form in such cases. (Doug. 183. Holford v. Hatch, and 1 Lutw. 351. Lamplugh v. Skiers.) The precedent in Lutwyche, is also in point, and a sufficient authority for the pleading. When the declaration avers, that the rent accrued subsequent to the assignment to the defendant, was due and owing to the testator, and still remains wholly in arrear, and unpaid from the defendant, it states a breach, in sufficient terms. It would be idle to go further, and say, that the lessee had not paid it, for that was already implied in the averment, that the defendant owed it.

Judgihent for the plaintiffs.

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

Per Curiam.

The three first causes of demurrer are frivolous. The last is the only one that merits any attention. The declaration was taken from 1 Richardson’s Practice, C. B. 329. a book of approved precedents, and it is, no doubt, according to the usual form in such cases. (Doug. 183. Holford v. Hatch, and 1 Lutw. 351. Lamplugh v. Skiers.) The precedent in Lutwyche, is also in point, and a sufficient authority for the pleading. When the declaration avers, that the rent accrued subsequent to the assignment to the defendant, was due and owing to the testator, and still remains wholly in arrear, and unpaid from the defendant, it states a breach, in sufficient terms. It would be idle to go further, and say, that the lessee had not paid it, for that was already implied in the averment, that the defendant owed it.

Judgihent for the plaintiffs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Johns. 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/executors-of-dubois-v-van-orden-nysupct-1810.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack