Bohn v. Hatch

• Decision Date: 12 April 1892
• Citation: 30 N.E. 659,133 N.Y. 64
• Parties: BOHN et al. v. HATCH.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

133 N.Y. 64

30 N.E. 659

BOHN et al.

v.HATCH.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 12, 1892.

Appeal from superior court of Buffalo, general term.

Action by Joseph and Catherine Bohn against Albert G. Hatch. From a judgment of the general term affirming a judgment of the special term dismissing the complaint, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

The complaint alleged that one Jesse Peck was in 1865 the owner of the premises in controversy, and that he had then given a license to plaintiff joseph Bohn to enter thereon, and use and occupy the property as long as he might desire; and that, acting on such license, plaintiff had taken possession of the premises, and made vaiuable improvements thereon. It appeared in evidence, however, that Jesse Peck was not the owner of the property, but was a mere agent for his sons, who were the real owners. The Peck sons conveyed the premises to one Clinton, and Clinton, or his successors in title, conveyed the same to defendant, Hatch, who demanded payment of rent therefor from plaintiffs, who were in the occupancy thereof, or a surrender of the premises. At the time of defendant's purchase plaintiff Joseph Bohn was holding the premises under a lease from Clinton.

O. C. De Witt, for appellants.

E. L. Parker, for respondent.

GRAY, J.

This action was brought by plaintiffs to restrain the defendant from prosecuting in the municipal court of Buffalo proceedings to summarily remove them from premises in their occupation, and to have their equitable interest in and to the same adjudged. Their complaint was dismissed at the trial term of the superior court of Buffalo, and the judgment of dismissal was affirmed, upon appeal to the general term. The opinions delivered upon each occasion were very full in their discussion of the questions, and leave little for us to say now in further affirmance of the judgment. In 1865 the plaintiff Joseph Bohn obtained permission from Jesse Peck to move a small house upon some land, proposed to be made by filling in on the bank of a stream. The allegations of the complaint and the evidence first given by plaintiff placed his entry into possession of the premises upon the ground of a mere license to occupy them; but subsequently he changed his evidence, and testified that Jesse Peck told him to fill up the land, and that if he did so he would give him a portion of it. The latter aspect of the case for the plaintiffs would be, of course, the more favorable one to them, inasmuchas such an agreement with an owner of the land would be based upon some consideration, and give strength to the claim of the plaintiffs for equitable relief. But the difficulty in the way of any equitable relief lies in the utter failure of the evidence to prove any title or sufficient authority in Jesse Peck. At the time the record title and the ownership of the premises were in Francis and Charles Peck, who were in California. They were sons of Jesse Peck, but it did not appear that he ever had any authority from them to create any interest or rights in or to the premises. Nor did it appear that the owners ever knew of plaintiffs' entry, or that there was any ratification of what Jesse Peck had done. He is dead, and the extent of any authority in him to deal with the property turns upon evidence of circumstances, which fall short of establishing the fact. Certainly, there was no evidence competent to prove the existence of any power in Jesse Peck to grant any rights in connection with the property in question. With no...