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.
Helon Buck et al., Appellants, v. Elisha Stanton, Respondent, 1872 — 51 N.Y. 624 · caselaw · US
General
Helon Buck et al., Appellants, v. Elisha Stanton, Respondent
51 N.Y. 624·New York Commission of Appeals·1872·NY
All concur.
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
Helon Buck et al., Appellants, v. Elisha Stanton, Respondent.
(Argued January 12, 1872;
decided May term, 1872.)
This action was originally brought in 1861 by Hiram Buck and Helon Buck to recover the possession of certain lands in Essex county. Hiram Buck died in 1864, leaving a will by which he devised his interest in the real estate m question to the plaintiffs other than said Helon, and they were by order substituted as plaintiffs in his stead, and the action was continued in their names and that of said Helon Buck. The latter acquired title to the interest claimed by him through an assignment from said Hiram Buck. Defendant claimed to , be the equitable owner of a portion of the premises in question, and asked a conveyance thereof and other affirmative relief. The cause was tried in 1865. Upon the trial defendant was sworn as a witness in his own behalf, and was permitted to testify as to transactions and conversations between himself and Hiram Buck tending to sustain his counter-claim. Held, that plaintiffs were assignees within the meaning of section .399 of the Code, as amended in 1862 (the amendment in force at the time of the trial), and the reception of defendant’s testimony was error.
Samuel Hand for the appellants.
R. M. Beckwith for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Lott, Ch. C.,]
Lott, Ch. C.,
reads for reversal.
All concur.
Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event.