Jackson ex dem. Sagoharie v. Dobbin
3 Johns. 223
Opinion
This is a clear case.. There is an uneequivocal acknowledgment by the defendant, that he went into possession under Murray &? Mumford, two of the lessors of the plaintiff; and whether he held under them or. not was a matter of fact for the jury to decide. The motion for a new trial must be denied.
Rule refused.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Jackson ex dem. Sagoharie v. Dobbin, 3 Johns. 223 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1808).
3 Johns. 223 (Jackson ex dem. Sagoharie v. Dobbin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Marsh v. Ne-ha-sa-ne Park Ass'n
25 A.D. 34 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Dodge v. Freedman's Savings & Trust Co.
93 U.S. 379 (Supreme Court, 1876)
Lane's lessee v. Osment
17 Tenn. 86 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1836)
Philip's Lessee v. Robertson
2 Tenn. 399 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1815)
Philips's Lessee v. Robertson
2 Tenn. 398 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1815)
Polk's Lessee v. Robertson & Cockrel
1 Tenn. 456 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1809)
Polk v. Robertson
19 F. Cas. 937 (Circuit Court of Tennessee, 1809)
Polk's Lessee v. Robertson and Cockrel
1 Tenn. 456 (Circuit Court of Tennessee, 1809)
Frazier's Lessee v. Basset
1 Tenn. 297 (Tennessee Superior Court for Law and Equity, 1808)