Hamilton v. Morris

New York Court of Chancery

Hamilton v. Morris

7 Paige Ch. 39, 1837 N.Y. LEXIS 307, 1837 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 102

CourtNew York Court of Chancery

DecidedSeptember 6, 1837

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 Paige Ch. 39 (Hamilton v. Morris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hamilton v. Morris, 7 Paige Ch. 39, 1837 N.Y. LEXIS 307, 1837 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 102 (N.Y. 1837).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor

said, that the report as to the title was imperfect, and that it must be referred back to the master to correct his report; that the master, upon a reference as to the title in a partition suit, should require the complainant to produce the abstracts and trace back his title as a tenant in common in the premises to the common source of title of the several tenants in common thferein; and that the master in his report should, as far as was practicable, [40]*40give an abstract of the conveyances of each and all of the undivided shares or interests of the several parties ,in the premises, from the time when all those shares were united in one individual, or a common source of title.

The master subsequently reported that the interest of the complainant was derived from a purchaser at a sale for the non-payment of taxes assessed upon the undivided share of an unknown owner of the premises; and that upon enquiry, he had been unable to ascertain who was the original owner of that undivided share of the premises, a part of which had been so purchased for taxes, or from whom he or the other tenants in common originally derived their title, or who were now the owners of the 'residue of the premises, except of the part so sold for taxes. The Chancellor, under the circumstances of the case, thereupon decided that such amended report was sufficient to authorize a depree for partition.

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

The Chancellor

said, that the report as to the title was imperfect, and that it must be referred back to the master to correct his report; that the master, upon a reference as to the title in a partition suit, should require the complainant to produce the abstracts and trace back his title as a tenant in common in the premises to the common source of title of the several tenants in common thferein; and that the master in his report should, as far as was practicable, [40]*40give an abstract of the conveyances of each and all of the undivided shares or interests of the several parties ,in the premises, from the time when all those shares were united in one individual, or a common source of title.

The master subsequently reported that the interest of the complainant was derived from a purchaser at a sale for the non-payment of taxes assessed upon the undivided share of an unknown owner of the premises; and that upon enquiry, he had been unable to ascertain who was the original owner of that undivided share of the premises, a part of which had been so purchased for taxes, or from whom he or the other tenants in common originally derived their title, or who were now the owners of the 'residue of the premises, except of the part so sold for taxes. The Chancellor, under the circumstances of the case, thereupon decided that such amended report was sufficient to authorize a depree for partition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Paige Ch. 39, 1837 N.Y. LEXIS 307, 1837 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-morris-nychanct-1837.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack