Jackson ex dem. Feeter v. Sternberg

20 Johns. 49
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1822·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The parol evidence falls short of proving such fraud, on the part of the defendant, as would vitiate and annul the sheriff’s deed to him, at law; and the evidence was inadmissible in any other view, for it contradicted the recital in the deed as to the particular execution on which the sale was made. (Jackson v. Vanderheyden, 17 Johns. Rep. 167.) The deed to the defendant is, per se, evidence of title in him. Judgment must, accordingly, be given for the defendant. But on a timely application by the creditor, Le Ray, or by the debtor, Peter Sternberg, or by any judgment creditor who is injured by the proceedings, we should, probably, set aside the sale and the sheriff’s deed, if the facts stated in the case should remain uncontradicted and unexplained.

Judgment for the defendant.

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

Jackson ex dem. Feeter v. Sternberg, 20 Johns. 49 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1822).

20 Johns. 49 (Jackson ex dem. Feeter v. Sternberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dolph v. Barney
5 Or. 191 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1874)
Day v. New England Car-Spring Co.
7 F. Cas. 252 (U.S. Circuit Court for New York, 1854)
Reed v. Heirs of Austin
9 Mo. 713 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1846)