Jackson ex dem. Stevens v. Stevens

New York Supreme Court

Jackson ex dem. Stevens v. Stevens

13 Johns. 316

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1816

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 13 Johns. 316 (Jackson ex dem. Stevens v. Stevens) 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. Stevens v. Stevens, 13 Johns. 316 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1816).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

_ The deed from Blanchard and his wife, of the 21st of. April, 1814, unquestionably conveyed to' the plaintiff a good title for an undivided half of; the farm, Mary never having executed any .other deed. * The question' is, whether the plaintiff shqws. á title to the other half; ' ; ...

it appears that,the lessor of thé.plaintiff, in 18.13, having'no title from any source, executed a deed with warranty to Jusfus Blanchard, for an undivided moiety of the farm, and also all his-interest Under the will oL Samuel Stevens,.- for ". the, consideration of 2,800 dollars; and that, on the 4th of April, 1814, about nine .months; afterwards, he obtained,; for the consideration óf 1,000 dollars, a conveyance, without warránty, of the whole farm from Briggs and his wife; . ' ;',

• There appears, to be, nothing to hinder the application of the j’ule of estoppel. -Ebenezer Stevens, professedly conveyed ap un- ' divided half -of the farm, and' all his Other interest under.the. will, without showing-what it was, to Blanchard-, who convened to. the defendant, .Now, in the absence of all other prooffit nTOSt be intended that the subsequent purchase made by Ehenez'er Stevens, from Briggs and his wife, was designed to confirm' thedeed which, he had-¡before executed to Blanchard.

Judgment for defendant.

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

Per Curiam.

_ The deed from Blanchard and his wife, of the 21st of. April, 1814, unquestionably conveyed to' the plaintiff a good title for an undivided half of; the farm, Mary never having executed any .other deed. * The question' is, whether the plaintiff shqws. á title to the other half; ' ; ...

it appears that,the lessor of thé.plaintiff, in 18.13, having'no title from any source, executed a deed with warranty to Jusfus Blanchard, for an undivided moiety of the farm, and also all his-interest Under the will oL Samuel Stevens,.- for ". the, consideration of 2,800 dollars; and that, on the 4th of April, 1814, about nine .months; afterwards, he obtained,; for the consideration óf 1,000 dollars, a conveyance, without warránty, of the whole farm from Briggs and his wife; . ' ;',

• There appears, to be, nothing to hinder the application of the j’ule of estoppel. -Ebenezer Stevens, professedly conveyed ap un- ' divided half -of the farm, and' all his Other interest under.the. will, without showing-what it was, to Blanchard-, who convened to. the defendant, .Now, in the absence of all other prooffit nTOSt be intended that the subsequent purchase made by Ehenez'er Stevens, from Briggs and his wife, was designed to confirm' thedeed which, he had-¡before executed to Blanchard.

Judgment for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Johns. 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-ex-dem-stevens-v-stevens-nysupct-1816.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack