Jackson, ex rel. Shaw v. Speak

7 Wend. 401
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 15, 1831
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 7 Wend. 401 (Jackson, ex rel. Shaw v. Speak) 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 rel. Shaw v. Speak, 7 Wend. 401 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1831).

Opinion

By the Court,

Nelson, J.

The charge of the judge was correct, and proper on the assumption that Jacob Spear was actually in possession of the premises at the time of his recognition of the title of Winter, and agreement to purchase, for it would be unreasonable to preclude a defendant from shewing that the plaintiff had no title, or that he himself had the title to the premises in question, if the acknowledgment of the title of the plaintiff was produced by imposition, or made under a misapprehension of the rights of the respective parties, Jackson v. Cuerden, 2 Johns. C. 353 ; but I apprehend that there was another very material question, growing out of the facts of this case, which should have been submitted to the jury, and which was not embraced in the view of the case presented., to them, viz. whether or not Jacob Spear entered [404]*404into possession of the premises under the contract to purchase mac^e with Winter, and consequently under Winter’s title. If he did so enter, he and those succeeding to his possession are Precluded from denying Winter’s title, until they have surrendered the possession thus obtained. 3 Johns. R. 499. 7 id. 157. 14 id. 224. 7- Cowen, 637. The evidence, which was somewhat contradictory, should have been submitted to the jury to determine under what title Spear entered; and they should have been instructed, that if they found that he entered under Winter’s title, that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict ; but if they found that he did not so enter, then the view taken by the judge was proper as to the effect of the negotiation for the purchase by Spear, while in the possession and occupation of the premises.

New trial granted.

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

Related

Ballard v. Knapp
152 Misc. 215 (New York Supreme Court, 1934)
Union Ferry Co. v. Fairchild
106 Misc. 324 (New York Supreme Court, 1919)
Wright v. Stice
51 N.E. 71 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1898)
Davis v. Howard
50 N.E. 258 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1898)
Greene v. . Couse
28 N.E. 15 (New York Court of Appeals, 1891)
Anderson v. McCormick
22 P. 1062 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1889)
Crumb v. Wright
97 Mo. 13 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1888)
Bradt v. Church
46 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 262 (New York Supreme Court, 1886)
Heermans v. Schmaltz
7 F. 566 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin, 1881)
Sherman v. Kane
14 Jones & S. 310 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1880)
In Re the Department of Public Parks to Acquire Title to Lands
73 N.Y. 560 (New York Court of Appeals, 1878)
People ex rel. Murphy v. Lockwood
5 Thomp. & Cook 526 (New York Supreme Court, 1874)
Tompkins v. Snow
63 Barb. 525 (New York Supreme Court, 1872)
Catlin v. Decker
38 Conn. 262 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1871)
Franklin v. Merida
35 Cal. 558 (California Supreme Court, 1868)
Willson v. Cleaveland
30 Cal. 192 (California Supreme Court, 1866)
People on rel. Ward v. Kelsey
14 Abb. Pr. 372 (New York Supreme Court, 1862)
Pearce v. Nix
34 Ala. 183 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1859)
Rockwell v. Saunders
19 Barb. 473 (New York Supreme Court, 1854)
Ingraham v. . Baldwin
9 N.Y. 45 (New York Court of Appeals, 1853)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Wend. 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-ex-rel-shaw-v-speak-nysupct-1831.