Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

13 Wend. 524

Ritchie v. Putnam

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1835

New York Supreme Court · decided 1835-05-15

This was an action of ejectment, tried at the Saratoga circuit in May, 1832, before the Hon. Esek Cowen, one of the circuit judges. The plaintiffs produced in evidence a lease in fee, of the premises in question, bearing date 9th March, 1812, from Gideon Putnam to their father, John Ritchie, and proved that the premises were held and occupied by a tenant of their father in the years 1812 and 1813 ; that their father died in 1812, and that they were his heirs at law.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1835-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 1909

6 state decisions

2018351840185018601870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1By the Court,

Sutherland, J.

¶2The objection to the plaintiff’s recovery, on the ground of the alienage of their father, John Ritchie, is now removed, by the production of the record of his naturalization, which took place on the 13th day of April, 1810. Record evidence of a fact imperfectly proved at the trial may be exhibited, on the argument of the case, in opposition to a motion for a new trial; such evidence being in its nature incontrovertible, it would be idle to send the cause down to a new trial, for the purpose of taking it. The practice of the court, in this respect, is well settled.

¶3It need not appear by the recor.l that all the’ preliminanr requisites to a naturalization were complied with. The judgment of the court, admitting the alien to become a citizen, is conclusive evidence upon that point. 7 Cranch, 420.

¶4The mother of the piainfifls was entitled to be their guardian in socage ; but there is no evidence that she ever acted in that capacity. In assigning the lease in question, she professed to act as administratrix of her husband, and not as guardian of his chi'dren ; she must therefore be considered as having acted in that capacity. As administratrix she had no control over the real estate of her husband; that descended to his children. The lease in question was a freehold estate, which she had no power to alien or encumber. Her assignment, therefore, passed nothing to the defendant which belonged to her children.

¶5Nor did the defendant acquire, under that assignment, the widow’s right of dower. A widow, before her dower is assigned to her, cannot convey an interest in the land to which she had a right of dower : it is a mere right of action, which cannot be conveyed or assigned. 10 Wendell, 414, 528.

¶6The defendant having shown, affirmatively, that he entered upon the premises, and had held them under this assign*527ment, there is no room for the presumption that he acquired the possession by a re-entry, tor a breach or the covenant oi the lessee.

¶7New trial denied.

/13/wend/524 · .json · Public domain