Jackson ex dem. Murray v. Denn

5 Cow. 200
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1825
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 5 Cow. 200 (Jackson ex dem. Murray v. Denn) 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. Murray v. Denn, 5 Cow. 200 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1825).

Opinion

Curia, per Sutherland, J.

The nonsuit must be set aside. The lessors of the plaintiff showed a continued possession in themselves, and the one from whom they derived it, under a claim or assertion of right from 1805 to 1821, or 2. In December, 1822, the defendant entered, without pretending any right or title, the premises being then vacant. This action was brought in April, 1823. The reason of the premises being vacant is given by Thomas Mumford, a witness for the plaintiff; who testified that he was the agent of the lessors, with authority to lease, or sell the lot; that he had leased it, for several years, to different tenants; that he last leased it to one Qmivy, who, after the expiration of his lease, held over, with the consent of the witness, who never knew that he had left the premises, until informed that the defendant had entered. This shows that the possession had never been abandoned by the lessors, without the animus revertendi.

[202]*202In Smith v. Lorillard, (10 John. 338,) the rule is thug gtated: “ A prior possession, short of 20 years, under s> claim, or assertion of right, will prevail over a subsequent possession, short of 20 years, where no other evidence appears on either side.” It is, however, to be understood, that the prior possession of the plaintiff had not been voluntarily relinquished, without the animus revertendi; and that the subsequent possession of the defendant was acquired by mere entry, without any lawful right. (16 John. 325. 2 id. 22. 3 id. 383. 4 id. 208.)

Motion granted.

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

Related

Pendo v. Beakey
89 N.W. 655 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1902)
Bagley v. Kennedy
11 S.E. 1091 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1890)
Mayor, Etc., of New York v. . Carleton
21 N.E. 55 (New York Court of Appeals, 1889)
Dingey v. Paxton
60 Miss. 1038 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1883)
Reformed Church of Gallupville v. Schoolcraft
5 Lans. 206 (New York Supreme Court, 1871)
Winans v. Christy
4 Cal. 70 (California Supreme Court, 1854)
Fisher v. Otis
3 Pin. 78 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1850)
Woodworth v. Fulton
1 Cal. 295 (California Supreme Court, 1850)
Crockett v. Morrison
11 Mo. 3 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1847)
Whitney v. Wright
15 Wend. 171 (New York Supreme Court, 1836)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Cow. 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-ex-dem-murray-v-denn-nysupct-1825.