Ely v. Ballantine

Decided November 17, 1831

New York Supreme Court · decided 1831-11-17

The defendant moved to strike out two counts in a declaration, in an action of ejectment commenced under the revised statutes, on the ground of the pendency of a previous action of ejectment for the same premises, in which the same persons named as plaintiffs in those counts were named as lessors of the plaintiff in the previous action, which is in the name of James Jackson, as nominal plaintiff, according to the former practice.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1831-11-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 1883

3 state decisions

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 counts moved to be stricken out may be necessary to enable the plaintiff to recover, and must be retained. If not retained, the recovery may be defeated by shewing a conveyance out of Ely, the plaintiff named in the first count; and although there cannot be a re*471covery in the names of the persons stated as plaintifis in the counts asked to be stricken out, if at the time of the conveyanee to them the premises were held adversely, still if named as plaintifis, and adverse possession is insisted on as rendering the conveyances to them inoperative, there can be a recovery in the name of Ely ; for the title, if not passed to his grantees? remains in him.