Hess v. Morgan.-Jackson ex dem. Woodworth and others v. Lindsay.-&c.

HESS against MORGAN.

To entitle a party to exemption from imprisonment by an execution against his body by a justice, it is necessary he should assert his claim to the exemption. It is not to be presumed that he is entitled to it.

JACKSON ex dem. WOODWORTH and others against LIND

SAY.

A construction of the Kayederosseras patent being the most ancient, and it corresponding with the other courses. given, was adopted. (Vide minutes of this term.)

JACKSON ex dem. MARTIN against PLATT.

VIDE the case and the opinion of the judge at the trial, stated in it. The judge mistook the evidence. It is plainly to be inferred that the plaintiff and Boutel combined to defraud Hervey, under whom the defendant holds, and that he ought not to recover.

BAZEN against ROGET.

A deliberate acknowledgment of a note being due ought to conclude the party, unless strong evidence be offered to show a mistake.

Beebe and others ads. The People.-Young v. Cavada -&c.

BEEBE and others ads. THE PEOPLE.

IN forcible entry, &c., the nature of the estate of the complainant ought to be stated, to show him entitled to the remedy. What is implied by the term disseised is not enough.

YOUNG against CAVADA.

ON certiorari. It is not necessary for a justice to set forth the act in his return; it is a public act by which he holds his court.

2nd. A variance in the nature of the action as stated in the narr. and venire is matter of form, and ought to have been objected to in the court below.

CARNA against PENFIELD.

A verdict of 8 cents in favor of defendant, when it ought to have been for the defendant simply, is a minimum of which the court will take no notice.

2d. The like decision, as in the last case, as to setting forth the act.

WRIGHT against ANTHONY.

A formal issue before a justice is not necessary. His proceedings are to be liberally treated.

VOL. III.

79

Thomas v. Striker.-People v. J. O'Neil.-Herbert v. Hallet.

THOMAS against STRIKER.

A fi. fa. set aside, which was issued on a judgment of non pros against an insolvent, when he had obtained a discharge a few days after the judgment. It was a debt due at the time of the discharge and capable of liquidation, and therefore discharged.

PEOPLE against J. O'NEIL.

CASE of forgery. Parol evidence of the existence of a bank in Boston, whose paper was forged, admi'ted.

2d. Parol evidence by a private mark of a merchant in New York, of the falsity of the bill also admitted.

APRIL TERM, 1802.

HERBERT against HALLET.

1st. The insured on freight, if the ship be injured must proceed to repair if she be repairable, and earn the freight. 2d. If the goods be insured, he must also proceed, and if they are accepted by the owner he will earn the freight, for he need not deliver them but on payment of freight.

3d. The court said there might be cases of insurance on freight, in which an abandonment would be proper.

Jackson v. Lunn.-Forsyth ads. Hallet --Jackson v. Dodge.

JACKSON ex dem. GANSEVOORT and others against LUNN.

1st. Titles to land acquired by British subjects before the revolution, may be held by them now independent of treaty. 2d. The treaty of 1794, confirms those rights and enables their heirs also to take.

3d. An alien may purchase and hold if the state do not interfere. This case is distinguishable from that of Kelly and Harison.

4th. An outstanding title in another must appear to be a continuing and subsisting title to defeat the plaintiff in this action.

5th. Proof of possession in different parts of the tract for a length of time, will be deemed a possession of the whole, and a deed or mesne conveyance from the patentees to the plaintiffs, may be presumed after a long posssesion. They have been presumed in a less period than 40 years, and were so in this case.

FORSYTH ads. HALLETT.

WHEN the common rules are entered, the costs of drafts and copies of narr. are taxable.

JACKSON er dem. WATTS and others against DODGE.

MOTION for a foreign struck jury allowed on the ground that an impartial trial could not be had where the venue was laid.

Jackson v. Brinckerhoff.-Jackson v. Weston.-&c.

JACKSON ex dom. JONES against BRINCKERHOFF.

1st. A deed of a military lot not deposited according to the act of 8th January 1794, admitted, to the prejudice of a subsequent purchaser, on the ground that the defendant claiming under the deed was in actual possession, and that was notice to all, and took the case out of the statute; this was acquiesced in and not made a point. Vide Jackson ex dem. Potter v. Hubbard, post.

2d. A conveyance while there is an adverse possession, is void, but it does not extinguish the title, dormit aliquando jus, moritur nunquam. The doctrine of estoppels considered. 3d. A technical estoppel can never be created by a conveyance under the statute of uses.

JACKSON ex dem. ONDERDONK against WESTON.

THE plaintiff must prove the defendant in possession, at the commencement of the suit. In this case the proof deemed sufficient.

GOUVERNEUR and KEMBLE against RHINELANDERS.

1st. On an insurance of American property, a foreign sentence to the contrary since the decision in our court of errors is not conclusive.

2d. A previous illicit trade cannot affect the property, on a subsequent voyage.