TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jackson ex dem. People v. Pierce

Jackson, ex dem. The People, against Pierce

Jackson ex dem. People v. Pierce, 10 Johns. 414 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1813)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
October 15, 1813
Citations
10 Johns. 414
Headnotes
Where a person, who had a mortgage of lands, was afterwards at-tainted, it was held that the mortgage might be set up against the people, ashavmg succeeded to the rights of gor. Where a ™aTiSamedor«rant from March, 1802, it was held, that after deducting the period of the American war, the lapse of time was sufficient to afford the presumption of payment. But the period of 20 years is only a circumstance on which to found a presumption, and is not, of itself, a bar. And where the attorney-general and surveyor-general, to whom the petition of the occupants of lands mortgaged by a person attainted, had been referred, by the senate, in March, 1802, reported the mortgage as^yt^tanding, and a balance due thereon, this was held sufficient to repel the presumption of paymeiitySeSpecially when connected with olher circumstances. Where a mortgage is%?yen of an undivided part or share in a large tract of land; and on partition, the right or share of'-Hhc mortgagor is allotted in severalty, the mortgage will be considered as attached to the part so assigned as the share of the mortgagor, and will cover his whole interest therein.
Summary
THIS was an action of ejectment, tried at the Oneida circuit, in June, 1813, before Mr. Justice Yates. • Letters patent under the colonial government, dated the 12th of June, 1771, were granted to William Bayard and fifty-four others, of whom William Kane and A. M‘Bougal were two, for 50,000 acres of land, known by the name of Freemasons’ pa{enf and formerly called the Oneida purchase. Kane and ve 1 M‘Dougal released in fee to Jphn Weatherhead all their undivided shares in the tract, on the 19th of October, 1771. The iract was divided by commissjdners of partition, appointed by an act of the legislature passeothe 10 th of April, 1787. By the partition, lots No. 5. and 98. fell to the share of Kane, and lots No. 28. and 64. to M(Dougal. Weatherkead was attainted, by the act of attainder of the 22d of October, 1779. The premises in question are a part of great lot No. 5. The defendant proved that Weatherkead, on the 2d of March, 1773, executed a mortgage deed to Thomas Warnald and others, of Leeds, Great Britain, for two fifty-fifth parts of the said tract, that is to say, two fifths of the said two fifty-fifths, to secure the payment of a bond given by him to W. and F., dated the 5th of August, 1772, for 243Z. 2s. lOd. sterling, in one year, with interest at 5 per cent., and three fifths to T. and H. W., to secure a bond given them, on the 12th of August, 1772, for 367Z. 18s. 5d. sterling, payable in one year, with interest. The mortgage contained covenants of seisin, quiet enjoyment, Sec. and for payment of the money. On the bond to W. and F. there was an endorsement, dated the 29th of April, 1774, of the payment of 4QZ. on account of interest, and on the bond to T. and U. W. an endorsement of the same date, of a payment of 58Z. Is. Ad. on account of interest. On the 19th of March, 1803, the mortgage was assigned to John Thurman. On the 29th of March, 1802, the attorney-general and surveyor-general, to whom had been referred by the senate the petition of the occupants of the land, made a report, that there was due on the said mortgage 6,653 dollars and 24 cents, and that it was not advisable for the state to redeem the mortgage, but that it would be proper to sell the land subject to the mortgage. Kane, on the 30th of April, 1795, demised lot No. 5. to one D. Rindge, for 21 years, at the annual rent of one shilling per acre; and on the 3d of February, 1800, being shown his release above mentioned, he assigned the indenture of demise to Thurman, to whom the tenant attorned by endorsement on the lease, and regularly paid the rent to him. The defendant claimed to hold by assignment under Rindge. Lot No. 98. had also been demised by Kane to A. Case, who assigned the lease to Thurman. No part of the Freemasons’ Patent was settled or inhabited, until about the year 1786, and the premises in question remained a forest, and uncultivated, until about the time Kane made the lease to Rindge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The state has succeeded to the rights of Weatherhead, and if the defendant would have been entitled to set up the mortgage as against him, without the attainder, he is equally so entitled against the people. In April, 1774, interest was paid on the bonds, for which the mortgage was given as a security. In March, 1802, the attorney-general and the surveyor-genéral, on a reference from the senate, reported the mortgage debt to be outstanding and due. Here was an interval of 28 years, during which the mortgage debt lay dormant; and if we deduct the period of the American war, it will leave the 20 years from which to form a presumption of payment. But the 20 years is only a circumstance on which to found the presumption, and is not, in itself, a legal bar; and at the very time when the presumption was to arise, the officers of the government to whom a question of this kind would naturally be referred by the government, and to whom it was referred by the senate, reported the mortgage debt to be still in force. This was enough to rebut the presumption, and in the year following, or March, 1803, the mortgage was assigned to Thurman, under whom the defendant held. When we connect with the above facts the further circumstance that the premises were uncultivated lands, and a forest, until 1795, we are of opinion that the jury would have been warranted to consider the mortgage as a subsisting encumbrance, and a valid defence by the party in possession of it.

The mortgage was originally given for a small undivided part, being two fifty-fifths of a large tract of land; but on partition, the right of the mortgagor was allotted to that part of the tract which included the premises; and we are of opinion that the mortgage is to be considered as attached to that part so assigned as the share bf the mortgagor, and as covering his whole interest in it.

J udgment for the defendant.,

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1830–1831: 11854–1855: 11858–1859: 11876–1877: 31880–1881: 11892–1893: 21928–1929: 11932–1933: 118302026peak 1876 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Nathan v. Equitable Trust Co.165 N.E. 282 (N.Y. 1929)
  2. Appeal of McCandless98 Pa. 489 (1881)
  3. Port v. Parfit30 P. 328 (Wash. 1892)
  4. Longwell v. Bentley23 Pa. 99 (1854)
  5. Hunter v. Snyder's Ex'r11 W. Va. 198 (1877)
  6. Sadler's Adm'r v. Kennedy's Adm'x11 W. Va. 187 (1877)

Most recent

  1. Baltzell v. Daniel149 So. 639 (Fla. 1933)
  2. Nathan v. Equitable Trust Co.165 N.E. 282 (N.Y. 1929)
  3. Robisson v. Miller27 A. 887 (Pa. 1893)
  4. Port v. Parfit30 P. 328 (Wash. 1892)
  5. Appeal of McCandless98 Pa. 489 (1881)
  6. Sadler's Adm'r v. Kennedy's Adm'x11 W. Va. 187 (1877)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list