Nowlen v. Colt
This text of 6 Hill & Den. 461 (Nowlen v. Colt) 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.
Opinion
I am of opinion that the ruling of the learned judge was correct. Mingling the wheat in a common bin, with the knowledge and assent of both parties, made them tenants in common; and the disposal of the entire mass by one of the co-tenants subjected him to this action. (Inst. lib. 2, tit. 1, § 28 ; Vin. Ab. tit. Property (E); White v. Osborn, 21 Wend. 72.)
New trial denied.
Where the mixture is by mutual consent, the proprietors have a joint interest, in proportion to their respective shares. (2 Bl. Comm. 405 ; 2 Kent’s Comm. 364.) As to the several distinctions which prevail in cases of mixture without mutual consent, see Story On Bailm. 43 to 45, § 40,3d ed.; 2 Kent's Comm. 364, 5; Bouv. Law Dict. tit. “ Confusion Of Goods;" Met. & Perk. Dig. tit. “ Confusion and Accession;” Dane’s Abr. Ch. 76, Art. 5.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
6 Hill & Den. 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nowlen-v-colt-nysupct-1844.