Jackson ex dem. Newcomb v. Smith

9 Johns. 100
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1812·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Assuming what the defendants contend for, that the election of the location of the gospel lot belonged to Z. Platt, the patentee, there is sufficient evidence of his locating it, as actually run out by the surveyor, and designated by marks and monuments. His first location on the map was corrected and controlled by his subsequent assent to the lot as run out. He could not have been ignorant of the location by the surveyor. He re sided at Plattsburgh, near the premises, and the surveyors reported to him weekly, and he corrected what he deemed incorrectly run. The N. E. corner of the gospel lot, by the field book, began at a beach tree, on the river Saranac, and about seven chains E. of where Vandenburgh had his saw-mill. This was a place of notoriety, and it could not have passed without observation.

The plaintiff is accordingly entitled to recover.

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

Jackson ex dem. Newcomb v. Smith, 9 Johns. 100 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1812).

9 Johns. 100 (Jackson ex dem. Newcomb v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gwynn v. Schwartz
9 S.E. 880 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1889)
Kellogg v. Smith
61 Mass. 375 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1851)
Haring v. Van Houten
22 N.J.L. 61 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1849)
Proprietors of Enfield v. Permit
5 N.H. 280 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1830)
Rockwell v. Adams
7 Cow. 761 (New York Supreme Court, 1827)
Jackson ex dem. Erwin v. Moore
6 Cow. 706 (New York Supreme Court, 1827)
Stambaugh v. Hollabaugh
10 Serg. & Rawle 357 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1823)
Ingalls v. Lord
1 Cow. 240 (New York Supreme Court, 1823)