Jackson ex dem. Bowne v. Hinman

in ejectment, iljo lessor claimed title by virtue of a sheriff’s sale, undev a judgment entered agáinst B., ’ title fromCd who claimed jjndsley pa-i!" puíchased from B. subsequent to the lien created Sen* ani'enpossession™dev that p™some years afPr'qu'itciat>k deed /or the premises under the Catskill patent, of j6G8, and set np that title as an older and better title. It was held that L. having purchased from B. and entered into possession under his title, was estopped from denying that title as against a plaintiff claiming under the same title. (

THIS was an action of ejectment, tried before Mr. Justice ^ “ Thompson, at the Green circuit, in August, 1812. The plaintiff claimed title to a lot of land in the village of Catskill, which the defendant possessed, as tenant to John Livingston. The prer mises had been sold by the sheriff of Green, by virtue of an execution issued on a judgment in this court, entered up in 1792, in faY0Ur °f the lessor of the plaintiff against Benan Brockway, Durban Brockway, and Gideon Brockway, in which suit Gideon Brockway alone was arrested, for the sum of 2,796 dollars and 97 cents The lessor of the plaintiff was the purchaser, and the sheriff’s deed to him, for the consideration of five dollars, dated 21st December, 1809, was produced and read m evidence. The plaintiff also read in evidence a deed from Elisha Camp and his w"’fe) dated 10th May, 1790, for the consideration of two hundred and seventy-five pounds, to the Brockways above named, for one acre of land, of which the premises in question are part. The lot in question was in the possession of Gideon Brockway, in 1792, an¿ fell to him on a division between him and the other two. John Livingston, about the year 1800, purchased the lot of Gideon Brockway, and it has since been held by the tenants of Livingston. Elisha Camp claimed title to the lot under the Lindsley patent, granted the 22d August, 1738, and built a house on the lot in 1785. The defendant gave in evidence the Catskill patent, issued the 20th April, 1688, which included the premises in question. A map of that patent made in 1767 was produced. A regular partition of the patent among the several proprietors was admitted, and a regular deduction of title from the proprietors of lot No. 1. in the 7th di vision, down to Livingston, who purchased from them, for a valuable consideration, by a quitclaim deed, dated the 12th June, 1804. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court; and it was agreed that if the court should be of opinion that the defendant was estopped from showing a title under the Catskill patent, judgment should be entered for the plaintiff; but if the defendant was not so estopped, then judgment should be entered for him. The case was submitted to the court without argument.