Monnot v. . Murphy

100 N.E. 742 · New York Court of Appeals · 1913

Facts

Plaintiffs, the widow and heirs of John B. Monnot, claim ownership of lands in The Bronx, New York City. Defendant claims ownership through Joseph Husson. In March 1874, a Supreme Court judgment in an action between Monnot and Husson found Husson had no right to the lands, and Monnot recovered them. This judgment was enforced by execution, removing Husson and placing Monnot in possession. Husson appealed and was denied restoration, but several months later, he allegedly re-entered and he or his successors continuously occupied the lands. In 1904, Husson's heirs partitioned these and other lands, and the defendant acquired her alleged right through a conveyance from Husson's daughter. A defense at trial was the adverse possession of the defendant and her predecessors in title.

Procedural history

The action is in ejectment. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, which the Appellate Division affirmed. The trial court, following *Monnot v. Rudd*, held that Husson's re-entry and occupation were insufficient to raise a presumption of adverse possession due to the prior judgment, absent proof of additional hostile acts. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision.

Issue

Can a party's re-entry and continued occupation of land, after being ejected by a prior judgment awarding possession to another, constitute adverse possession without additional proof of hostility beyond the acts of occupation themselves?

Holding

The judgment of the lower courts is reversed, and a new trial is ordered.

Rule

Adverse possession not founded on a written instrument requires actual, continued occupation under a claim of title, exclusive of any other right, and must be protected by a substantial inclosure or be usually cultivated or improved, as per Sections 371 and 372 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Actual possession and improvement as an owner, without recognizing another's title, is presumed adverse unless rebutted. A prior judgment of ejectment does not inherently make a subsequent re-entry and occupation subservient to the original owner's title. The purpose of adverse possession statutes is to provide notice to the real owner through unequivocal hostile acts. An invalid claim of title is as effective as a valid one in providing notice of adverse occupation.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-09-18. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.