Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
John Fonner, Appellant, v. Hannah Johnson, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, 1879 — 78 N.Y. 617 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
John Fonner, Appellant, v. Hannah Johnson, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent
78 N.Y. 617·New York Court of Appeals·1879·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
John Fonner, Appellant, v. Hannah Johnson, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent.
(Argued. September 20, 1879;
decided November 11, 1879.)
This was an action of trespass upon lands, brought originally against John Johnson, who died pending the appeal to the General Term. Plaintiff claimed title under a conveyance from the hems of one Locke. Defendant claimed that he was in lawful possession under a parol agreement for the sale of the land to him by said Locke. The action was tried in connection with the case of Qhadwiclc v. Fonner, reported on appeal in 69 N. Y., 404.
Upon the trial defendant’s evidence was to the effect that the parol contract was for the sale of the land at twelve dollars per acre, that defendant entered under the contract, made improvements, paid the purchase price and continued in possession. Plaintiff’s evidence was to the effect that the purchase price was thirty dollars per acre, that defendant did not pay and abandoned the contract giving up possession. Defendant was recalled and asked whether he ever agreed to pay thirty dollars for the land. This was objected as incompetent under section 399 of the Code of Procedure, Locke being then dead. The objection was overruled and exception taken. Defendant answered, “no,” The referee found that defendant had lawful possession, at the time of the alleged trespass. Field, that the exception was untenable, as the evidence was entirely immaterial. That the referee having found that defendant was in lawful possession, judgment for defendant must necessarily follow, and it was not material what the contract price ivas or whether it had been paid.
The case of Ghadwick v. Fonner (supra), distinguished.
Lewis <& Gurney for appellant.
Wm. 3. Farnell for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam]
Per Curiam
opinion for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.