Smith v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Smith

177 A.D. 218, 163 N.Y.S. 863, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5222

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 7, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 177 A.D. 218 (Smith v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Smith, 177 A.D. 218, 163 N.Y.S. 863, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinions

Kellogg, P. J.:

The defendants claim title to a great part of the premises in question by a deed to their father from his brother Richard in August, 1863. At the time of the conveyance, and ever since, Richard and his descendants have been in possession of the property, and possession was never delivered under the deed. Powell was well to do; Richard was poor and in financial difficulties. There is no explanation why possession was not given, or why the deed was given. The production of the deed and its record, under such circumstances, are not much evidence of title. Evidently there is something wanting, some fact which has been lost in the long lapse of time. The case, therefore, invites the statute of repose. Under all the circumstances we favor an affirmance of the judgment, with costs.

All concurred, except Sewell, J., who dissented in an opinion, in which Woodward, J., concurred.

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

Kellogg, P. J.:

The defendants claim title to a great part of the premises in question by a deed to their father from his brother Richard in August, 1863. At the time of the conveyance, and ever since, Richard and his descendants have been in possession of the property, and possession was never delivered under the deed. Powell was well to do; Richard was poor and in financial difficulties. There is no explanation why possession was not given, or why the deed was given. The production of the deed and its record, under such circumstances, are not much evidence of title. Evidently there is something wanting, some fact which has been lost in the long lapse of time. The case, therefore, invites the statute of repose. Under all the circumstances we favor an affirmance of the judgment, with costs.

All concurred, except Sewell, J., who dissented in an opinion, in which Woodward, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D. 218, 163 N.Y.S. 863, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-smith-nyappdiv-1917.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack