The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-10-07
COURT or APPEALS.
Important Question AS 40 Title 20 Lnnds-Can
IA so0d Title be Derived from Aiicns s-An
English Earl in tho Case.

English Earl in tho Case.
Before Chief Judge Hunt and Full Bench.
The People OF the state or Ne,o York, Appellants,
cs. Alofazo Snyder, Respoadeat-Thls action was
commenced in November, 1884 for The purpose OF
establishing an 'onice foundn to enforce an eschea
to the plaintffs OF the premises described 10 the
complaint, which are in the county OF Livingston.
The complaint contains FIVE counts The first count
Is general In ejectment. The next three counts
alege that Robert Morris was seized in fee OF the
locus In Qo that the title passed rom bm 10 CERTAIN
parties who named in the several counts, and who
1t is alleged were aliens by reason OF which the lands
escheated to the plaintiffs The fith count is for
rents anu profits. The answers are several IN num-
Der. The cause was tried at the october Circuit,
1850, in Livingston county, and the Court ordered
"a verdict for the defendant; upon which Judg-
ment was duly perfected, from which the plaintlts
appealed to the General Term. The Judgment was
aIirmed by the General Term, September, 1868,
and the plaintiffs appeal TO this court. The opinion
in the General Term Is reported in 81 Barbour 5S9.
There are no questions OF fact IN the case. 1ne ex
ceptons are very numerous ana are all contained in
the made. The real object OF the action Is
doubleday to again test the ttle 10 the large pro-
perry known as the Pulney estate lying IN the
western part OF the state OF New YORK and the sole
question 10 be decided by the Court OF Appeals is
whether the defendant derived good title through
Charles Williamson, an alien and four successive
aliens.
The appellants set forth that the action was
brought by the plaintiffs TO recover tue pos
session OF certain premises occupied by the
defendant, claimed to have eschealed TO the
people OF tnS State. Inc complaint alleges, ana the
defendant claims, that the defendant entered INTO
the possession Of said lands rs tenant, under VIII
liam, Earl OF Craven, Alexander Oswald and
Edmund Bucknall Escourt, citizens OF the United
Kingdom OF Great Britain and Ireland. The object
OF the action reaches beyond the land described in
the complaint but NOT beyond the land not conveyed
by such foreign owners. The leading facts OF the
case are as follows:-rbe defendant has occupied
the lands described IN the complaint for only five or
stx years In IS4s Dr Arnold GRAY TOOK possassion
ana held IT -ntl 1852. Before Dr.. Gray entered into
possession the premises mad been wholly unoccu-
After this proof by the piainuhs the defendants
counsel offered in evidence as ioundatlonal 10 the
title OF the Earl OF Craven and tile other owners
under whom the defendant claims the right OF pos
the papers hereinafter referred to- The deien
dant, as Will DC seem POUNDS his tte upon treaty
between the Commonweath OF Massachusetts aud
the State OF New York. The Commonwealth "
Massachusetts received ald conveyed the Title TO tAe
large tract OF land OF which the premises IN ques
tfon are part on condition that tue title oil the
Indians should be extinguished by purchase. BY
the constitution OF 1877 it was provided thai nur
chase OF the Indians OF this state should be valid,
unless made with the consent OF the Legislature.
rms consent was never obtained TO the alleged pur-
chase from The Indians by the grantees OF Massacnu.
sets. The defendant traces his title through Chas VIII
Hanson an alien. The deed to MN was moi acknow.
lodged TIL 1926, and presumntively not delivered
until after acknowledgment, so that the tue Of
Williamson was not protected by the treaty Of 1894,
made between the United States and Great Britain,
aud his naturalization Is not sufficiently established
70 prove the death and helrsip OF several persons
through whom the defendant seeks TO trace the title
Of his landlords, he introduces an ancient eXempf-
cation from the Court Of Chancery or proceedings
by which certain hearsay testimony was taken,
claimed 10 be incompetent 10 prove many OF the
facts sought TO be established thereby In any legal
tribunal. Independent of this hearsay testimony
the case s entirely silent In regard to the death ald
hefshlp oil such persons.
Case stu on. For appellants, John II. Reynolds;
for respondent d. Kumsey.
Nor-Periormance Of Contract.
IhH{p s. Judge u.s. Waiiam B. Lang d Gl.-paln-
tin appealed in this case from an anlfmance by the
General Term OF the Superior Court OF Judgment
dismissing the complaint in an action TO recover
damages for the non performance OF a contract
alleged to have been made between the parties In
May, 1861, by which defendant agreed TO sell aud
deliver TO plantn 1000 pattern rifles with bayonets
attached, at eighteen dollars piece, 10 he shipped
from Liverpool not later than the ls OF July follow.
ing. The Court dismissed the complaint on the
ground that the memorandum OF sale was signed
by only one OF the parties, the defendant to be
charged thereby. Under the statute providing that
In sale OF goods for more than fifty dollars .It
shall be void unless note or memorandum OF such
contract be made IN writing ana be subscribed to by
the parties TO be charged thereby Decision
reserved.
Landlord md Teunnt-Important Decision.
isaac Herman, P'aintlFia Error &C. TIE People
QJ tie state or Neac YORK, rel. Ltzxte q. Fnette,
DEFENDANT ia E,vor.-This case was heard yesterday
BY the Court OF Appeals, on motion OF the defendant
In error TO quash the writ nullity. The writ was
prosecuted by Herman, q landlord, TO revise the
Judgment OF the General Term OF the Supreme
Court for this district, held last April,
which judgment reversed a summary proceed
ing before the Sixth District Court by means
OF which Mrs. Filetie, his tenant, had been wrong
fully dispossessed by him. and awarded ner writ
OF restitution The tenant now moved the Court OF
Appeals TO quash the landlords writ, on the ground
that the act OF May 10, 1865 prescribes that judg
inal unless an appeal shall be allowed by the same
term or the term Immediately succeeding II, which
tue Court unanimously granted, and quasaed the
writ with costs OF motion. A. J. Eeqlcr tor the
A. BuuelStlel III.