Meyer v. Betz

The Superior Court of New York City

Meyer v. Betz

3 Rob. 172

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedMarch 4, 1865

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Rob. 172 (Meyer v. Betz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meyer v. Betz, 3 Rob. 172 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1865).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Moncrief, J.

There can be no doubt that if no sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict in favor of the plaintiff is given, it is the duty of the court to take the case from the jury, and to dismiss the complaint.. (Wilds v. The Hudson River Railroad Co., 24 N. Y. Rep. 430, 433. 20 id. 73. 18 id. 422.)

The legal presumption is that the conveyance of the fee carried with it whatever was then attached to the soil of the premises, and, therefore, that the defendant was the owner of the buildings in question. (4 Kent’s Com. 468.) But this presumption might have been repelled by evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. He alleged in his complaint that “ he was, and is, the sole and bona fide owner of the buildings.” To maintain his action he was bound to establish this fact. (Mott v. Palmer, 1 Comst. 571, 578, 579.)

There was no evidence of the ownership of the buildings in the plaintiff. Mr. Schimmel, from whom he alleged he purchased them, did not prove his title, nor was it shown that' Mr. Niner, his step father, had a right to sell the buildings. [173]*173Aga.fn, even if some evidence of a former ownership in the buildings had been adduced, the complaint was properly dismissed for the reason that it appeared that the plaintiff was no longer the real party in interest. He testified that he had sold them.

The exception must be overruled, and judgment entered dismissing the complaint.

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

By the Court, Moncrief, J.

There can be no doubt that if no sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict in favor of the plaintiff is given, it is the duty of the court to take the case from the jury, and to dismiss the complaint.. (Wilds v. The Hudson River Railroad Co., 24 N. Y. Rep. 430, 433. 20 id. 73. 18 id. 422.)

The legal presumption is that the conveyance of the fee carried with it whatever was then attached to the soil of the premises, and, therefore, that the defendant was the owner of the buildings in question. (4 Kent’s Com. 468.) But this presumption might have been repelled by evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. He alleged in his complaint that “ he was, and is, the sole and bona fide owner of the buildings.” To maintain his action he was bound to establish this fact. (Mott v. Palmer, 1 Comst. 571, 578, 579.)

There was no evidence of the ownership of the buildings in the plaintiff. Mr. Schimmel, from whom he alleged he purchased them, did not prove his title, nor was it shown that' Mr. Niner, his step father, had a right to sell the buildings. [173]*173Aga.fn, even if some evidence of a former ownership in the buildings had been adduced, the complaint was properly dismissed for the reason that it appeared that the plaintiff was no longer the real party in interest. He testified that he had sold them.

The exception must be overruled, and judgment entered dismissing the complaint.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Rob. 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-v-betz-nysuperctnyc-1865.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack