Howard v. Easton
7 Johns. 205
Opinion
Here was an agreement to sell and deliver possession, as well as the improvements upon land; [207] and possession must be considered as an interest in land, within the meaning of the statute of frauds, so as to render the contract void, as not having been reduced to writing. Possession is prima facie evidence of title, and no title is complete without it. The judgment below must, therefore, be reversed..
Judgment reversed*
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Howard v. Easton, 7 Johns. 205 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1810).
7 Johns. 205 (Howard v. Easton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Jenkins v. Brown
173 S.E. 257 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Sarkisian v. Teele
88 N.E. 333 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz
81 N.W. 1027 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1900)
Catlett v. Dougherty
21 Ill. App. 116 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1886)
Thompson v. Tilton
34 N.J. Eq. 306 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1881)
Cassell v. Collins
23 Ala. 676 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1853)
Johnson v. Hanson
6 Ala. 351 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1844)
Putney v. Day
6 N.H. 430 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1833)
Lombard v. Ruggles
9 Me. 62 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1832)
Lower v. Winters
7 Cow. 263 (New York Supreme Court, 1827)