Jackson ex dem. Feeter v. Sternberg
This text of 20 Johns. 49 (Jackson ex dem. Feeter v. Sternberg) 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
20 Johns. 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-ex-dem-feeter-v-sternberg-nysupct-1822.