# Suydam v. Williamson (61 U.S. 427)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
61 U.S. 427
Suydam v. Williamson
THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of New York.
It was an action of ejectment brought by the defendants in error against Suydam to recover two lots of ground in the city of New York. On the part of the defendants in error, it was contended that every material question in the case was adjudged by this court in the cases of Williamson v. Berry, 8 Howard, 495; Williamson v. The Irish Presbyterian Congregation, 8 Howard, 565; and Williamson v. Ball, 8 Howard, 566. The counsel for the plaintiff in error alleged that this case was unlike those in several important particulars. But as the decision of this court turned altogether upon the manner in which the case had been brought up, it is only necessary to state so much of it as will illustrate the point of practice.
The record showed a declaration in ejectment, a plea of not guilty, issue joined, suggestion of the death of some of the plaintiffs and substitution of their heirs, empannelling of a jury, their verdict of quilty against Suydam, the case held under a curia, the judgment for the plaintiffs with costs, and a prayer for a writ of possession, which was granted. Judgment signed this 6th day of December, 1854.
R. E. STILWELL, Deputy Clerk.
Then came the following:
Circuit Court United States, Southern District of New York.
WILLIAMINA H. WILLIAMSON ET AL. v. JAMES H. SUYDAM.
This is an action of ejectment for two lots in the sixteenth ward of the city of New York. The declaration is in the usual form; the plea is not guilty. Either party may refer to the pleadings as part of this case.
The plaintiff gave in evidence an exemplified copy of the will, &c., &c., &c.
The plaintiffs thereupon rested.
The defendants' counsel then proved the acts of the Legislature, the deed of Clement C. Moore, the petitions to the Legislature and to the chancellor, the master's reports, the orders of the chancellor, the extracts from the journals of the two Houses, of which copies are hereto annexed; these were all objected to by the plaintiffs' counsel, and were read subject to the objection.
The defendants' counsel then offered in evidence a deed from Thomas B. Clarke to Peter McIntyre, of which the following is a copy, &c., &c., &c.
The plaintiffs' counsel then offered to prove—
1st. That the acts of the Legislature were not for the benefit of the infants, but for the benefit of Thomas B. Clarke merely.
2d. That the orders of the chancellor had the effect to take the proceeds of their future interest in the property sold, and to apply the same to the father's debts, without giving them any benefit, by support or otherwise, out of the interest of the life estate in other parts of the property.
3d. That under the acts and orders he actually aliened the lot on Broadway and all the southern moiety of the Greenwich property, excepting two lots, and that none of the children received any benefit from such alienation.
4th. That nearly the whole of the property mentioned in the acts of Legislature was mortgaged or conveyed by Thomas B. Clarke for old debts; that no proceeds were ever invested or secured, or ever received, from the grantors or mortgagees.
5th. That so far from providing for the children or protecting the estate, he suffered a large portion of the northern moiety to be sold for assessments, and was proceeding to dispose of the same moiety for twenty-one years, when, on the 31st of March, 1826, a bill was filed against him on behalf of the children, and an injunction issued.
6th. That on the death of his wife he broke up housekeeping, and ceased to live with his children; that the plaintiff was Mrs. Williamson; was, from the death of her mother, in August, 1815, supported and educated entirely by one of her aunts; and that, after about two years from the mother's death, the other children were supported and educated by their friends, and were entirely neglected by their father.
The defendants' counsel objected; the objection was sustained. The plaintiffs' counsel excepted.
A verdict was then, by direction of the court, taken for the plaintiffs for the premises claimed, subject to the opinion of the court upon the questions of law, with liberty to either party to turn this case into a special verdict or bill of exceptions.
SAMUEL R. BETTS. [L. S.]
Endorsed: 127, Circuit Court, southern district New York. Williamina H. Williamson et al., agt. James H. Suydam.-Cr. case. Jas. L. Sluyter, plaintiffs' attorney.
Filed this 29th January, 1855.
Then followed a transcript of other papers in the case. The writ of error was dated 18th December, 1854.
This was the state of the record upon which the case was brought up to this court.
It was argued by Mr. Ellingwood for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Field for the defendants; but as their arguments were upon the merits of the case, they are omitted in this report.
Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse