Jackson ex dem. Loux v. Buel

9 Johns. 298
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1812
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 9 Johns. 298 (Jackson ex dem. Loux v. Buel) 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. Loux v. Buel, 9 Johns. 298 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1812).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The lessor of the plaintiff is entitled to recover for the possession of the defendant, extending beyond the tea acres. This is admitted by the case; but the great point is, whether the right reserved in the deed of erecting or building a dam on the bank of the creek at the place specified, be such an interest as that an ejectment will lie for it. The exception fur* ther states that the grantor, &c. is to occupy and possess the afore* mid premises without any let, See. It is evident that an interest in the soil was reserved at the given place, not only for erecting the dam, but for occupying and possessing it. There can be no. doubt but that this interest would be considered a tenement, within, the decisions under the English settlement law; for it has been held that a right of pasturage, of a- dairy, of a rabbit warren, and of a fishery, carried ouch an interest in the land as to create a tenement. (1 Term Rep. 358. 2 Term Rep. 451. 3 Term Rep. 772. 4 Term Rep. 671.) In one of the cases, Ashhurst, J. said that a fishery was a tenement, and recoverable in ejectment; and in another of them, Lord Kenyon held that a praecipe would lie for a free warren, though the party has no further interest in the. land than to enter and use the animals;’ and if a pmcipe will lie, (i fortiori an ejectment, which requires much less certainty, will lie. In Mellington v. Goodlittle, (And. 106.) it was decided in. error, that an ejectment would lie for a beast or cattle-gate which was a right of common for a beast; and in that case the court admitted that an ejectment would lie for a common appurtenant. Whenever a right of entry exists, and the interest is tangible, no that possession can be delivered, an ejectment will lie; and such an interest was reserved by the deed ia question.

The lessor of the plaintiff is, accordingly, entitled to recover, as well the premises reserved, as the other land encroached upon by the defendant.

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

Related

Butler v. . Frontier Telephone Co.
79 N.E. 716 (New York Court of Appeals, 1906)
City & County of San Francisco v. Grote
36 L.R.A. 502 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
Smith v. Revels
29 N.Y.S. 658 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)
Nolan v. Rockaway Park Improvement Co.
28 N.Y.S. 102 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)
Moore v. Brown
16 N.Y.S. 592 (New York Supreme Court, 1891)
Nye v. . Hoyle
24 N.E. 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 1890)
Murphy v. Bolger
60 Vt. 723 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1888)
Sisson v. Cummings
42 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 22 (New York Supreme Court, 1885)
Frisbie v. McClernin
38 Cal. 568 (California Supreme Court, 1869)
Fidler v. McKinley
21 Ill. 308 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1859)
Rowan v. Kelsey
18 Barb. 484 (New York Supreme Court, 1854)
Champlain & St. Lawrence Rail Road v. Valentine
19 Barb. 484 (New York Supreme Court, 1853)
Northern Turnpike Road Co. v. Smith
15 Barb. 355 (New York Supreme Court, 1852)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 Johns. 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-ex-dem-loux-v-buel-nysupct-1812.