Case Name: Jackson, ex dem. Heet and Gourley, against Bush
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1808-11
Citations: 3 Johns. 512
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jackson, ex dem. Heet and Gourley, against Bush.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 512–513

Head Matter:
Jackson, ex dem. Heet and Gourley, against Bush.
NEW-YORK,
Nov. 1808.
A person who &id,Setinedthe military tract, under colour of a bona fde purchase, made prior to the 5th April, put^outof'post session, until he is paid for his improve¡ngto’ the°act of tiie 5th of April, 1803. (Laws ofN. T. sect 2 j" 3"’
THIS was an action of ejectment, for part of lot no. 34. in the town of Aurelius, in the county of Cayuga„ -phe cause was tried before Mr. Justice Spencer, at the . . . , , Cayuga circuit, m July, 1808.
Upon the trial, the plaintiff gave in evidence, a patent r ’ r . ° r . for the lot, to one Christian Blue: an act of the legislature, passed the 7th April, 1806, for the relief of Heet, one 0f the lessors of the plaintiff; and a patent for-, the * premises, to Heet, from the commissioners of the land°®ce) *n pursuance of the said act. He also proved, that Hue died before the 27th March, 1783, to wit, in the ... year 1781, without issue.
The defendant gave in evidence, a deed from one John Hegeman to Austin and Tyler, dated the 14-th December, 1794, for 450 aeres of the lot, including the premises^ and a deed from Tyler to the defendant, dated 15th April, 1803, for 120 acres, being the premises in question. The defendant was in possession prior to the 5th April, 1803, had paid a considerable part of the considera¿ion money, and had made large improvements prior to the 5th April, 1803. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff, and also found the fact, that the defendant ■ had settled under colour of a bona fide purchase, made prior to the 5th April, 1803. A question was reserved, whether the plaintiff should be permitted to sue out execution, until he had paid for the improvements, deducting a reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the land.
Henry, for the plaintiff.
Richardson, for the defendant,

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The defendant is entitled to compensation for his improvements, as he brings his case within the 2d section of the act of the 5th April, 1803. The act of the 7th April, 1806, granting the lot to one of the lessors of .the plaintiff, does not interfere with the provision in the act of 1808. It only vests the lot in Heet, as fully as if he had been the lawful heir of Blue ; and assuming him to be such heir, he is, nevertheless, bound by the former act, to pay for the improvements. The two acts can have full operation, without impairing the provisions of either.
Judgment for the plaintiff.