Noah Haynes Swayne

“ The testimony offered as to the amount paid by Burnett to Vliet for the property was irrelevant, and was properly excluded.
In Marlin v. Willink, [9] where the leading facts were substantially identical with those upon which the questions before us have arisen, Judge Duncan said: 'This is the plainest case in the world.' Ejectment was held to have been properly brought by the vendor, and a judgment in his favor was sustained. Whatever relief the plaintiff in error may be entitled to must be sought in equity. He can have none at law. ”

“ The vendee pays nothing for the enjoyment of the property. The case comes within the category of a license. [2] In such cases the vendee cannot dispute the title of the vendor any more than the lessee can question the title of his lessor. [3] The assignee of the vendee is as much bound by the estoppel as the vendee himself. [4] Upon default in payment of any instalment of the purchase-money, the possession becomes tortious, and the vendor may at once bring ejectment. [5] Ejectment may sometimes be maintained when covenant for the purchase-money could not. ”

“ Litt. 52, b; Mumford v. Whitney, 15 Wendell, 380; Dolittle v. Eddy, 7 Barbour, S.C.. 78; Watkins v. Holman, 16 Peters, 54; Blight's Lessee v. Rochester, 7 Wheaton, 535.↑ Whiteside v. Jackson, 1 Wendell, 418; Jackson v. Moncrief, 5 Id. 26; Jackson v. Stewart, 6 Johnson, 34; Hamilton v. Taylor, Little's Select Cases, 444.↑ Jackson v. Walker, 7 Cowen, 637.↑ 1 Wendell, 418; 5 Id. 26 ”