Jackson ex dem. Casselman v. Lepper

New York Supreme Court

Jackson ex dem. Casselman v. Lepper

3 Johns. 12

DecidedFebruary 15, 1808

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Johns. 12 (Jackson ex dem. Casselman v. Lepper) 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. Casselman v. Lepper, 3 Johns. 12 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1808).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are of opinion in this case, that the defendant ought to succeed, and, consequently, that judgment of nonsuit must be entered according to the stipulation in the case.

The Stonearabia patent was surveyed for the proprietors, in 1754, by Hendrick Frey. Martinus Dillenback was then one of the proprietors, and the lessor of the plaintiff derives his title to his part of lot no. 50^ in the second allotment of the patent, under a conveyance from the said Martinus, executed in the year 1766. The deed did not specify the courses or length of the lines of the said lot, but simply conveyed the land as lot no. 50. According to Frey's survey, the defendants are not in possession of any part of lot no. 50, and Dillenback and those [15]*15who claim under him, ought to be confined to lot no. 50, as designated by Freys survey. Until the contrary appears, (and it does not appear in the present case) we must intend that Frey’s• survey was acquiesced in by the proprietors, and that lot no. 50, by that general description, was intended to be, as ascertained by that survey.

Judgment of nonsuit.

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

Per Curiam.

We are of opinion in this case, that the defendant ought to succeed, and, consequently, that judgment of nonsuit must be entered according to the stipulation in the case.

The Stonearabia patent was surveyed for the proprietors, in 1754, by Hendrick Frey. Martinus Dillenback was then one of the proprietors, and the lessor of the plaintiff derives his title to his part of lot no. 50^ in the second allotment of the patent, under a conveyance from the said Martinus, executed in the year 1766. The deed did not specify the courses or length of the lines of the said lot, but simply conveyed the land as lot no. 50. According to Frey's survey, the defendants are not in possession of any part of lot no. 50, and Dillenback and those [15]*15who claim under him, ought to be confined to lot no. 50, as designated by Freys survey. Until the contrary appears, (and it does not appear in the present case) we must intend that Frey’s• survey was acquiesced in by the proprietors, and that lot no. 50, by that general description, was intended to be, as ascertained by that survey.

Judgment of nonsuit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Johns. 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-ex-dem-casselman-v-lepper-nysupct-1808.