Opinion

Conkling v. Brown

  • 8 Abb. Pr. 345
  • 57 Barb. 265
Court
New York Supreme Court
Filed
Jun 15, 1870
Status
Published
Author
Cardozo
On the bench
Cardozo
Cited by
4 cases
Authority
More cited than 75.0%

The opinion

By the Court.—Cardozo, J.

The lot in question is part of land which descended _from Boltis Moore *355 to Augustus M. Winter, and Margaret" Cheesehrough, who thus "became tenants in common. Each was seized solely or severally of his undivided share of the land ; and all there was of unity between them was the possession, not estate, in the land (4 Kent Com., 368); and that possession they could sever and divide, and assign to each his separate part by parol, and the release which they executed effected nothing more. Neither acquired any new estate (Wood v. Fleet, 36 N. Y., 499 ).

Upon the death, therefore, of Augustus M. Winter, intestate, unmarried, without descendants, leaving no father, the fee descended to his mother, Mrs. Mary Hill, and to the exclusion of the brothers and sisters of the half blood, of Mr. Winter, they not being of the blood of Mr. Moore, the ancestor of M. Winter (1 Rev. Stat., Edmonds’ ed., 702; Morris v. Ward, 36 N. Y., 587 ).

There must be judgment for the plaintiff on the submission.

Ingraham and George G. Barnard, JJ., concurred.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.