People v. Leonard

11 Johns. 504
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1814
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 11 Johns. 504 (People v. Leonard) 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
People v. Leonard, 11 Johns. 504 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1814).

Opinion

Tkompsoh, Gh. J.

delivered the opinion of the court. This was a trial for a forcible entry and detainer. The complainant, on opening his case, proposed to confine his proof to his possession only, but the judge ruled, that the complainant must prove in himself an estate in fee, or an estate for years at least; that the title was in question, and that the complainant must give the like evidence of title, as xvas required in ejectment. Admitting the complainant must give the like evidence of title, as is required in ejectment, he offered to show, what would have entitled him to recover in ejectment. If the lessor shows himself in the peaceable possession of land, and that he was forcibly dispossessed, it will be sufficient to entitle him to recover possession, and the defendant v. ill not be permitted to sot up title to defeat it. He must restore the party to his possession, wrongfully taken from him, in the first place. But, I apprehend, there was a mistake in saving, the title was in question. In the case of The People v. King, (2 Johns. Rep. 98.) on a motion to quash a conviction, and fov restitution, Kent, Ch J. says, we cannot decide on the title or rights of the parties. The complainant has nothing to do with that. He must give up the possession irregularly obtained, put the defendant in statu quo, and then proceed legally to the question of title. In the case of The People v. Ruckel, (8 Johns. Rep. 468.) Apenccr, J. says, the court cannot, on this indictment, inquire into the title. Right or title to the property is no excuse. The statute n as made to prevent persons from doing themselves right by force; and the court, in [510]*510givIng its opinion, seems to assume that possession is enongh foi~ the complainant to show.

Although the indictment alleges, that the complainant wa~ seised, yet this seisin maybe shown by necessary implication, and peaceable possession is evidence of seisin. (Bac. Tit. Eject. E.) In the matter of Shotwell, (10 Johns. Rep. 306.) the court say, we cannot investigate the title upon affidavits. The only inquiry is as to the force, and the regularity and equity of the proceedings. A new trial must therefore be granted.

New trial granted.

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

Related

People v. Baldwin
26 N.Y. Crim. 508 (New York County Courts, 1911)
Potter v. New York Baptist Mission Society
23 Misc. 671 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Finnegan v. Burrows
49 N.Y.S. 1134 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Greeley v. Spratt
19 Fla. 644 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1883)
Kelly v. Sheehy
60 How. Pr. 439 (New York Marine Court, 1881)
Van Auken v. Monroe
38 Mich. 725 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1878)
Archey v. Knight
61 Ind. 311 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1877)
Sterling v. Warden
51 N.H. 217 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1871)
McFarlane v. Ray
14 Mich. 465 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1866)
People ex rel. Cooper v. Field
52 Barb. 198 (New York Supreme Court, 1865)
Wells v. De Leyer
1 Daly 39 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1860)
Gates v. Winslow
1 Wis. 650 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1853)
Dustin v. Cowdry
23 Vt. 631 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1851)
Bogardus v. Rector
4 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 633 (New York Court of Chancery, 1847)
Stean v. Anderson
4 Del. 209 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1845)
Bracken v. Preston
1 Pin. 365 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1843)
Mason v. Park
4 Ill. 532 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1842)
Randolph v. Alexander
8 Tenn. 429 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1827)
Randolph v. Meek
8 Tenn. 58 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1827)
Harris v. Bell
10 Serg. & Rawle 39 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1823)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 Johns. 504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-leonard-nysupct-1814.