From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

RALSTON v. LUSH

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 1, 1917
181 App. Div. 894 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)

Opinion

November, 1917.


Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the final award of costs. The situation between the brothers made admissible declarations of Morris Jackson to the witness Lawrence. While incompetent to prove a grant, such declarations of a prior owner are received to explain seizin, or to qualify possession, especially as between persons in joint or contiguous occupancy. ( Van Dyck v. Van Beuren, 1 Johns. 345; Jackson v. Bard, 4 id. 230; Pitts v. Wilder, 1 N.Y. 525, 527; Chadwick v. Fonner, 69 id. 404.) Therefore the exception to the court's ruling at folio 88 of the record was well taken. Jenks, P.J., Thomas, Mills, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.


Summaries of

RALSTON v. LUSH

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 1, 1917
181 App. Div. 894 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)
Case details for

RALSTON v. LUSH

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE RALSTON, Respondent, v. CARMAN R. LUSH, Appellant, and Others…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 1, 1917

Citations

181 App. Div. 894 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)

Citing Cases

City of Oneida v. Drake

While incompetent to prove a grant, "such declarations of a prior owner are received to explain seizin, or to…