Burnet v. Crane
| Decision Date | 06 March 1894 |
| Citation | 28 A. 591,56 N.J.L. 285 |
| Parties | BURNET v. CRANE. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to circuit court, Union county; before Justice Van Syckel.
Action in ejectment by Jonathan H. Crane against Helen Burnet. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
The other facts fully appear in the following statement by McGILL, Ch.:
Action of ejectment to recover possession of a triangular piece of land in the city of Elizabeth which lies between the southerly side of Westfield avenue and the former center line of Golden street. Before the opening of Westfield avenue and the vacation of Golden street, as hereinafter stated, the defendant in error was, indisputably, the owner of the land at the locus in quo, north of the center line of Golden street, and the plaintiff in error was the owner of the land south of that center line. In 1869 and 1870 Westfield avenue was laid out and opened, so that it ran across Golden street at an acute angle. Its southerly boundary reached the land of the plaintiff in error, in Golden street, about 20 feet from the point at which that boundary crossed the center of Golden street, and, continuing in the plaintiff's land that distance, crossed the center of Golden street into land of another owner, who is not a party to this suit, and, continuing therein a few feet, entered land of the defendant in error, the same being in Golden street north of its center, and continued therein a considerable distance through the defendant's land, of which distance the first 113 feet is in front of the land of the plaintiff,—that is, beginning about 4 1/2 feet north of the center of Golden street, and running northeasterly until, at the end of 113 feet, the line is 19.2 feet north of the center of Golden street; thus forming, substantially, a triangle of the defendant's land between the land of the plaintiff, bounding on the center of Golden street, and the southerly side of Westfield avenue, the hypothenuse of which is the southerly side of Westfield avenue and the base is the center of Golden street. Upon the opening of Westfield avenue, the plaintiff in error extended her fences so as to include within them the triangle in question, and thereby took exclusive possession of the locus in quo. In December, 1887, the public easement in the land which was in Golden street, outside the limits of Westfield avenue, was surrendered by proceedings in vacation in virtue of provisions of the city charter, and thereafter the defendant brought this suit to recover possession of the triangle described. The plaintiff in error defended the action upon the ground that, although the public easement in the defendant's land in Golden street may have terminated, she, nevertheless, as abutting landowner, had a private right of way thereover. At the circuit it was ruled that this insistment, if well founded, did not constitute a sufficient defense or bar to the action; and, accordingly, judgment was entered for the plaintiff there.
P. H. Gilhooly, for plaintiff in error.
Frank Bergen, for defendant in error.
McGILL, Ch., (after stating the facts.) The existence of the easement claimed by the plaintiff in error will not justify the exclusive possession which she has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florida Power Corp. v. McNeely, 1650
...394; Stevens v. Headley, 1905, 69 N.J.Eq. 533, 62 A. 887; Texas Co. v. O'Meara, 1941, 377 Ill. 144, 36 N.E.2d 256; and Burnet v. Crane, 1894, 56 N.J.L. 285, 28 A. 591. With reference to the subject of actions as they may relate to an easement, we deem it necessary to refer only to general a......
-
Oddo v. Saibin
...former to protect and enforce his seizin of the fee, the latter to prevent a disturbance of his easement. Burnet v. Crane, 56 N. J. Law, 285, 287, 28 A. 591, 44 Am. St. Rep. 395. The complainants' bill contains a prayer for an injunction to protect their interest in and to said right of way......
-
Dvorin v. City of Bayonne
...former to protect and enforce his seizin of the fee, the latter to prevent a disturbance of his easement. Burnet v. Crane, 56 N. J. Law, 285, 287, 28 A. 591, 44 Am. St. Rep. 395; Oddo v. Saibin, supra. Complainants' claim, hereinabove referred to, that defendant has annually assessed the la......
-
Ricci v. Matteodo
...with any easement existing in favor of the defendants. See Hancock v. Wentworth, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 446; Burnet v. Crane, 56 N. J. Law, 285, 28 A. 591, 44 Am. St. Rep. 395; Jacobson v. Hayday, 83 N. J. Law, 537, 83 A. All exceptions of the defendants are overruled, and the case is remitted to ......