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.
Tjerck D. W. Whitaker, Respondent, v. Charles Burhans, Appellant, 1875 — 65 N.Y. 559 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
Tjerck D. W. Whitaker, Respondent, v. Charles Burhans, Appellant
65 N.Y. 559·New York Commission of Appeals·1875·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
Tjerck D. W. Whitaker, Respondent, v. Charles Burhans, Appellant.
(Argued January 5, 1875;
decided May term, 1875.)
This was an action of trespass. The locus m quo was certain flats or fishing grounds upon the Hudson river, below the mouth of Esopus creek. The alleged trespass consisted in entering upon the flats and driving stakes for the purposes of drawing nets, etc. Plaintiff claimed under a patent granted by George III, King of Great Britain, to one Hugh Patrick, dated January 16, 1768. The question whether the locus m quo was embraced in the description in the grant was contested on the trial. The court directed a verdict for plaintiff. The judgment was reversed simply upon the ground that the question as to whether the locus m quo was included in the grant should have been submitted to the jury. Upon the other questions discussed, a majority of the commission did not agree.
John A. Van JEtten for the appellant.
If. If. Bchwonmaher for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Dwight, C.]
Dwight, C.
reads for reversal and new trial; Reynolds, C., concurs; Earl, J., concurs in result.
Gray, C., reads for affirmance; Lott, Ch. C., concurs.
Judgment reversed.