Home/New York Court of Appeals/Ludlow v. Rector, Church Wardens & Vestrymen of St. John's Church

Ludlow v. Rector, Church Wardens & Vestrymen of St. John's Church

100 N.E. 892, 207 N.Y. 689, 1913 N.Y. LEXIS 1333
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 28, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by47 cases

This text of 100 N.E. 892 (Ludlow v. Rector, Church Wardens & Vestrymen of St. John's Church) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ludlow v. Rector, Church Wardens & Vestrymen of St. John's Church, 100 N.E. 892, 207 N.Y. 689, 1913 N.Y. LEXIS 1333 (N.Y. 1913).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Without entering upon a discussion of the other questions presented on this appeal, we reach the conclusion that the order appealed from must be reversed and the judgment of the Special Term affirmed for the following reason:

In order to maintain this action it was incumbent on the plaintiff to establish that she had been in possession of the real property involved in the "action for at least a year before the commencement of her action. Her allegation in the complaint to this effect was denied by the defendant, and the court at Special Term refused to find as requested by her that she had thus been in possession. Under the *690 provisions of the Code, as it existed at the time, it must be assumed that the reversal by the Appellate Division was upon questions of law and not of fact. Especially, in view of the peculiar nature of the property involved in this action, it cannot be said, as matter of law, that the plaintiff was in possession of the premises as required by the Code, and, therefore, under the refusal of the trial court to find as requested, she has failed to establish this fact essential to her recovery.

The. order and judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the judgment of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in both courts.

Cullen, Ch. J., Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase, Collin and Hogan, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Related

In Re Jonathon CB
958 N.E.2d 227 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2011)
In Re KJ
885 N.E.2d 1116 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2008)
In Re GO
727 N.E.2d 1003 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2000)
In Re MM
619 N.E.2d 702 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1993)
People v. Shephard
605 N.E.2d 518 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1992)
People v. P.H.
582 N.E.2d 700 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1991)
Cobin v. Pollution Control Board
307 N.E.2d 191 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1974)
State, in the Interest of Ln
263 A.2d 150 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1970)
State ex rel. L. N.
263 A.2d 150 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1970)
In Re Elmore
222 A.2d 255 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1966)
Buckley v. Bacon
240 Cal. App. 2d 34 (California Court of Appeal, 1966)
Application of Gault
407 P.2d 760 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1965)
State v. Naylor
207 A.2d 1 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1965)
In RE JOHNSON v. Johnson
174 N.E.2d 907 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1961)
Maxie Leroy Pee v. United States of America, James E. Curtis v. United States of America, Leroy S. Johnson v. United States of America, Gordon A. Magruder v. United States
274 F.2d 556 (D.C. Circuit, 1959)
Pee v. United States
274 F.2d 556 (D.C. Circuit, 1959)
State v. Shardell
153 N.E.2d 510 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1958)
State ex rel. Lewis v. Superior Court
316 P.2d 907 (Washington Supreme Court, 1957)
In Re Lewis
316 P.2d 907 (Washington Supreme Court, 1957)
Harris, Et Ux. v. Souder, Supt., Etc.
119 N.E.2d 8 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 N.E. 892, 207 N.Y. 689, 1913 N.Y. LEXIS 1333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ludlow-v-rector-church-wardens-vestrymen-of-st-johns-church-ny-1913.