Jackson ex dem. Baldwin v. Leonard

New York Supreme Court

Jackson ex dem. Baldwin v. Leonard

9 Cow. 653

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1824

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 9 Cow. 653 (Jackson ex dem. Baldwin v. Leonard) 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

Jackson ex dem. Baldwin v. Leonard, 9 Cow. 653 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1824).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, per Sutherland, J.

The charge of the judge was erroneous. Leonard, the defendant, showed nothing like an adverse possession for 20 years. He purchased of Joseph T. Pitney only six or seven years before the trial, and then entered upon the lot for the first time. . Bryant swears expressly that he never sold to Leonard, or put him in possession of any part of the lot. Whether Bryant, or those claiming under him, could protect themselves on the ground of adverse possession, is not material; for' there was no privity between them and the defendant; and no continuity of Bryant’s possession is shown.

In Brandt v. Ogden, (1 John. Rep. 159,) Spencer, J. says, “ Smeed’s possession is not connected with that of Wing, nor is the defendant’s with that of Smeed. There is no continuity of possession. Under these circumstances it cannot be pretended that this is an adverse possession of twenty years.” So in Doe v. Campbell, (10 John. 477,) the court say, “ but the decisive objection to this defence (of adverse possession) is, that no regular deduction of title,' or privity and continuity of possession, was shown and deduced down from Smith to Elliott, or'tc any of the [685]*685other defendants. Adverse possession must be marked by definite boundaries, and be regularly continued down, to render it availing.”

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

Curia, per Sutherland, J.

The charge of the judge was erroneous. Leonard, the defendant, showed nothing like an adverse possession for 20 years. He purchased of Joseph T. Pitney only six or seven years before the trial, and then entered upon the lot for the first time. . Bryant swears expressly that he never sold to Leonard, or put him in possession of any part of the lot. Whether Bryant, or those claiming under him, could protect themselves on the ground of adverse possession, is not material; for' there was no privity between them and the defendant; and no continuity of Bryant’s possession is shown.

In Brandt v. Ogden, (1 John. Rep. 159,) Spencer, J. says, “ Smeed’s possession is not connected with that of Wing, nor is the defendant’s with that of Smeed. There is no continuity of possession. Under these circumstances it cannot be pretended that this is an adverse possession of twenty years.” So in Doe v. Campbell, (10 John. 477,) the court say, “ but the decisive objection to this defence (of adverse possession) is, that no regular deduction of title,' or privity and continuity of possession, was shown and deduced down from Smith to Elliott, or'tc any of the [685]*685other defendants. Adverse possession must be marked by definite boundaries, and be regularly continued down, to render it availing.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Cow. 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-ex-dem-baldwin-v-leonard-nysupct-1824.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack