Stone v. Matthews

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

Stone v. Matthews

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 307

CourtCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

DecidedJuly 1, 1799

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 307 (Stone v. Matthews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stone v. Matthews, 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 307 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1799).

Pincite

Opinion

But the Court of Errors held, that the judgment was erroneous, and a resolution was offered and passed on the reversal, as follows : “ Resolved, that property of boarders at taverns and boarding-houses, is not liable to distress for rent although such property is not in their possession, but in the [308]*308possession and actual use of the tenant, by their permission, and without the consent of the landlord.”

This resolution was adopted by a vote of 15 to 7.

95= The question arose under the statute 2 R. S. 413, 2d Ed. § 15, which excepts from distress the property of boarders at taverns and boarding-houses. The Supreme Court held that this exception embraced only the “ property in use by him as a boarder.”

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

But the Court of Errors held, that the judgment was erroneous, and a resolution was offered and passed on the reversal, as follows : “ Resolved, that property of boarders at taverns and boarding-houses, is not liable to distress for rent although such property is not in their possession, but in the [308]*308possession and actual use of the tenant, by their permission, and without the consent of the landlord.”

This resolution was adopted by a vote of 15 to 7.

95= The question arose under the statute 2 R. S. 413, 2d Ed. § 15, which excepts from distress the property of boarders at taverns and boarding-houses. The Supreme Court held that this exception embraced only the “ property in use by him as a boarder.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-v-matthews-nycterr-1799.