New York Supreme Court, 1812

Jackson ex dem. Stanton v. De Long

New York Supreme Court · Decided January 15, 1812

9 Johns. 43

Counsel

Drier, for the plaintiff contended, that all that part of the award, relative to the lessor’s giving security, and the defendant’s continuing in possession, was bad;* but admitting it to be good, it could gjve no yye or possession that would bar an action of ejectment. The case of Johnson v. Wilson† was conclusive to show that the award is imperfect and uncertain, and, therefore, void., Storey, contra, insisted, that though an award could not transfer a title or freehold; yet it might give the temporary possession or holding, so as to bar an ejectment. He cited Doe v. Rosser, (3 East, 15.) 4 Dallas, 121,122.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The defence offered by the defendant was insufficient. The award directed that the lessor of the plaintiff should ' pay to the defendant two several sums of money at different periods, and that if he gave the defendant “ good and sufficient security for the payment,” the possession of the premises was to be delivered to him. But as the award has not defined the nature of the security, and whether it was to consist of real or personal security, or to what extent, it is so far void, for uncertainty; and the lessor of the plaintiff, who is admitted to have a good title to the premises, is entitled to recover without any previous tender of security.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.