Jackson ex dem. Denniston v. Denniston

New York Supreme Court

Jackson ex dem. Denniston v. Denniston

4 Johns. 311

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1809

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 4 Johns. 311 (Jackson ex dem. Denniston v. Denniston) 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. Denniston v. Denniston, 4 Johns. 311 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1809).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The statute is peremptory. It makes the devise to the witness void, and, of course, no title can exist under it. As the defendant claims under a sale by the witness, as devisee, her title must be void.

The lessors claim an undivided part only, and if they show title to any part, they will recover pro tanto. If the defendant meant to set up a tide as tenant in common, she ought to have entered into the common rule specially. As she has not done so, it was not necessary for the plaintiff to prove an actual ouster.

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

Per Curiam.

The statute is peremptory. It makes the devise to the witness void, and, of course, no title can exist under it. As the defendant claims under a sale by the witness, as devisee, her title must be void.

The lessors claim an undivided part only, and if they show title to any part, they will recover pro tanto. If the defendant meant to set up a tide as tenant in common, she ought to have entered into the common rule specially. As she has not done so, it was not necessary for the plaintiff to prove an actual ouster.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Johns. 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-ex-dem-denniston-v-denniston-nysupct-1809.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack