Case ID: cai_2/html/0215-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Kent, Oh. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jackson ex dem. Bleecker, against Whitford.
    A tenant deriving title under a lease cannot dispute his landlord's right by showing the premises are in another patent.
    Ejectment for lands in Saratoga. The plaintiff proved a lease of part of.the 18th lot in the 16th allotment of the grand division of the Saratoga patent, by John R. Bleecker (from whom his lessor established her title) to one John Skidmore, who entered, and held under it, paying rent as a tenant. That Skidmore sold the lease to one Danforth, who died leaving two sons, who divided the farm between themselves, acknowledging, however, the title of Bleecker. That from one of these sons the defendant acquired possession in exchange for another farm. The defendant admitted he thus came into the lands, but offered to prove they were no part of Saratoga patent, being actually out of its boundaries. This testimony being overruled, a verdict was found for the plaintiff, to set aside which the present application was made.
    * Woodworth, (Attorney-General,)
    for the defendant. We admit that a tenant cannot controvert the title of his landlord, but we contend that when the premises are not included in the lease, he can show that circumstance. If, however, this should be against us, we insist on our right to the usual notice to quit.
    Henry, contra,
    was stopped by the court.
   Kent, Oh. J.

The want of notice to quit was not alleged at the trial; it is too late, therefore, to urge it now, because had it been urged, the plaintiff might have been ready to establish it. The case does not mention it; we may, therefore, intend it was proved. As to the main ground, the defendant cannot be permitted to question his landlord’s title. This is a settled rule. He must 'give up to his landlord the possession he had from him. The premises were received as part of lot 18, and the tenant cannot now, as against his lord, say they are not so. The plaintiff may have possessed the lot long enough to shut out all adverse claims, and to gain himself a title by his possession only. The defendant can take nothing by his motion.

Motion denied. 
      
       See Jackson ex dem. Low v. Reynolds, 1 Cai. R. 454; Jackson ex dem. Van Alen v. Vosburgh, 7 J. R. 186; Brant ex dan. Cuyler v. Livermore, 10 J. R. 358.