The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-11-07
TO THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD.
Supreme Court-Circult.
Before Hon. Jus tice Clerke.

WHAT CONSTITUTES A POSSESSION"
Nov Abr The Matter Of the Notice Of Eleanor Harris
and William Hav;s.-Clcrke il think the posse
which the statute requires enable party to compel
determination upon any claim which another person
may make to any real property is Of the nature
actual possession. The possession must be def
mite, positive and notorious there must be an enclo
capable Of keeping out CATTLE but it need be
m artificial fence obstruction sufficient to prevent
such intrusion is enough jackson Hastead Cow,
part was devised, with other property to the actors
in this proceeding by Esther Dougrs to whom it had
been conveyed by deed dated 1Sth 1929, By Daniel T.
Ingraham Their guardian asserting their claim under
this devise rented it to Sebastian for the term of
agreement, Overer STIMULATING to put up fence the
entire boundary Of the property, except where fence
occupied buildings the northwest corner Of the
tract near the Fourth avenue), and enclosed the
property, that the whole Of the tract fenced.
lsilas l.udlam's testimony He held until May,
1873, when lie dispossessed by the guardian under
proceedings it then remained unoccupiei I'm
til May 1890 when he rented it for year to Mr. Hol
lowell who had factory the adjoining premses. Az
ter 1850 the guardian continued to assert the claim of
mis- wards y visiting the property driving away tres
protection of that together with other property similarly
situated in the noghborlood He visited this tract
or three times month during the years 1851 and 1882
but not frequently in 1853 Now consider this suf
cient possession, within the true meaning and spirit Of
the statute. 1t actual bona fde possession orr
gnating and commencing under color the devise from
Mrs Douglass and the deed to her from Mr. Ingraha,
proved occupancy Overcr, continued by the
superptendence and exercise Of ownership BY Harris
behalf Of the actors In this proceeding The premises in
question: forming small part Of this tract
theless included in it, and the tract not being divided
into lots for any separate use this possession embraced
the whole. ], therefore, think there ought to be
judgment against the plea.
LIABILITY ON CONTRACT.
Hamilton against Idylor.-CIERKE 1.-The original
contract having many, II not all, the attributes Of
copartnership party liable tothe other for adj
vances or losses but by subsequent settlement and
rangemen between the parties they mutually rcicas
each other from the obligations of this contract and the
defendants by instrument under seal (havng agreed
under the arrangement to reimburse the plaintiff
ract declare their indebtedness him in the amount Of
81 1876 IS, and by the instrument, give him
gage the patent right to the payment Of this
But this instrument is not merely mortgage il
provides for the mode, terms and time OF payment The
clause relative to the manner and contingency under
which the condition only be violated, is the only
provision in the instrument which indicates the time of
payment. think that payment cannot be demanded
any than the mortgage could be forecosed, until
clause to- could be only when the defendants re-
fused to pay the proceeds Of sales to the extent OF the
claim. 1t Is admitted that the defendants have done
nothing since the mortgage to effect sales Is this
enough to put them in delaults They may be able to
furnish good excuse for not prosecuting the business
during the time that elapsed between tine execution Of
the mortgage and the commencement Of this suit. do
not think therefore, that they liable in this action.
do not say they exoneraed from this debit bat the
be shown TO have arisen, the issue must be clearly
made that by their fault and deliberate purpose sales
havo been made, intended to be made. Judgment
for defendants.