Jackson ex dem. M'Crackin v. Wright

14 Johns. 193
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1817
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 14 Johns. 193 (Jackson ex dem. M'Crackin v. Wright) 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. M'Crackin v. Wright, 14 Johns. 193 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1817).

Opinion

Spencer, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The decision of the judge at the circuit, was correct, on two grounds :

1. The grant, under the private act of the 2d of April, 1806, to Peter Boise, of 200 acres of land, part of lot 60, in Sterling, cannot, in any point of view, be considered as lands coming within the description and intention of the parties, as manifested by the deed from Boise to the lessor of the plaintiff. The deed grants the military right, or parcel of land granted as bounty lands for services during the revolutionary war, and is dated in July, 1794. The lands in question were not granted as bounty land; 1st. Because it is declared to be a gratuity for services, and sufferings : 2d. The bounty lands referred to in the deed were such as had been promised by the state, under the concurrent resolutions of the legislature, and would have comprehended 500 acres. (2d Greenl. ed. Laws, 332.)

2. The deed from Boise to M'Crackin is a bargain and sale, and quit claim, and he had then no title to convey in the premises ; and no title, not then in esse, would pass, unless there was a warranty in the deed; in which last case, it would operate as an estoppel, for avoiding circuity of action. (Co. Lit. sect. 446. 265. a. and b. 3 Johns. Rep. 366.)

It is a mistake to suppose the deed operative under the act, (2d Greenl. ed, Laws, 332.,) for the conveyances rendered valid under the fifth section of that act, are such only as were given for lands granted under that act.

Motion denied.

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

Related

Ebenstein v. Pritch
275 A.D.2d 256 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1949)
Commonwealth v. Bierly
37 Pa. Super. 496 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1908)
Donovan v. Twist
85 A.D. 130 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)
People v. Miller
44 N.W. 172 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1889)
Eldridge v. Rochester City & Brighton Railroad
7 N.Y.S. 439 (New York Supreme Court, 1889)
Frost v. Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church
22 N.W. 189 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1885)
Myers v. Reed
17 F. 401 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1883)
Morgan v. Hazlehurst Lodge
53 Miss. 665 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1876)
Simpson v. Greeley
8 Kan. 586 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1871)
Fields v. Squires
9 F. Cas. 29 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon, 1868)
Bayler v. Commonwealth
40 Pa. 37 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1861)
Kent v. Harcourt
33 Barb. 491 (New York Supreme Court, 1860)
Clark v. Baker
14 Cal. 612 (California Supreme Court, 1860)
Clark v. McElvy
11 Cal. 154 (California Supreme Court, 1858)
Frink v. Darst
14 Ill. 304 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1853)
Van Renesselaer v. Kearney
52 U.S. 297 (Supreme Court, 1851)
Stokes v. Jones
18 Ala. 734 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1851)
Bank of Utica v. Mersereau
3 Barb. Ch. 528 (New York Court of Chancery, 1848)
Edwards v. Varick
5 Denio 664 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1846)
The Panama
18 F. Cas. 1073 (S.D. New York, 1846)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 Johns. 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-ex-dem-mcrackin-v-wright-nysupct-1817.