Nicholls v. Wentworth
| Decision Date | 24 November 1885 |
| Citation | 100 N.Y. 455,3 N.E. 482 |
| Parties | NICHOLLS v. WENTWORTH. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Ransom & Joyce, for appellant, Emma J. Nicholls.
John T. Murray, for respondent, Phebe L. Wentworth.
The general term reversed a judgment awarding a perpetual injunction against the defendant from obstructing a certain alley, upon the ground that the evidence did not authorize the finding made by the trial court that the use of the alley by the plaintiff and her grantors had, for a period of more than 20 years, been open, notorious, and well known, under a claim of right adverse to the exclusive ownership of any part thereof by the defendant.
The order of reversal must be deemed to have been made upon questions of law, as it does not specify that it was made upon questions of fact. Code Civil Proc. 1338; Davis v. Leopold, 87 N. Y. 620;Rider L. R. Co. v. Roach, 97 N. Y. 378. The only question, therefore, for our consideration is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of the trial court, and the legal conclusions predicated thereon, that such a user will establish a right in one party to an easement in the land of another, if continued for a sufficient length of time. There is no conflicting evidence in the case, and the finding was based upon undisputed testimony. It showed that in the year 1846 one Reynolds and Went worth, being owners of adjoining lots on Church street, in the village of Lockport, opened an alley-way, about 15 feet in width, one-half lying on each side of their dwelling line, and then commenced and mutually continued to use the same, either by themselves or their respective grantees, uninterruptedly from that time to the year 1880, as a private way to reach the stables and other structures on the rear of their respective lots. Each party erected fences, bounding the side of the alley, on his own land, and they have each substantially maintained them until the present time. Each party built barns on their respective lots adapted to the joint use of such alley, and have ever since maintained them, and have used said alley in passing over and through the same with their horses and carriages, etc., from Church street to and from such barns or other structures. In 1869 the plaintiff purchased of its owner the westerly half of the lot lying south of said alley, and, at the suggestion of the defendant's husband, who was then, and for a period of 25 years had been, the owner of the northerly lot adjoining said alley, caused to be inserted in his deed a clause describing the alley as being half on each lot, and continuing as follows: ‘Together with such right of way in the alley aforesaid from Church street to the north end of the premises above described as the said parties can lawfully grant, to be used and enjoyed always in common with the owners of the remaining east part of said lot No. 15 and the owner or owners of the said lot next north of said lot No. 15, who have an interest or right of way in common in said alley, and this conveyance being made subject to the right of the owner of said lot north of said lot No. 15 on said alley.’ It also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Railroad Co. v. Roseville
... ... 283; State v. Railroad Co., ... 45 Ia. 139; Shultz v. Commissioners, 20 Ind. 178; Dowling v ... Hennings, 83 Am.Dec. 545; Nicholls v. Went- [76 Ohio St. 113] ... worth, 100 N.Y. 455; 22 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 1184, 1185 and ... 1193; Nail & Iron Co. v. Furnace Co., 46 Ohio St ... ...
-
Stickler v. Halevy
...injunctive relief to remove obstructions to an easement of access on neighboring land granted to plaintiff); Nicholls v. Wentworth, 100 N.Y. 455, 3 N.E. 482 (N.Y.1885). In DeForrest, as in the instant case, plaintiff made use of a strip of land along the boundary of adjoining properties for......
-
Alstad v. Boyer
...Jensen v. Showalter, 1907, 79 Neb. 544, 113 N.W. 202; New York: Townsend v. Bissell, 1875, 4 Hun, N.Y., 297; Nicholls v. Wentworth, 1885, 100 N. Y. 455, 3 N.E. 482; Oklahoma: Johnson v. Whelan, 1935, 171 Okl. 243, 42 P.2d 882, 98 A.L.R. 1096; Pennsylvania: see, Rhea v. Forsyth, 1860, 37 Pa.......
-
Lewis v. New York & H. R. Co.
...Woodruff v. Paddock, 130 N. Y. 618, 624,29 N. E. 1021;Snell v. Levitt, 110 N. Y. 595, 18 N. E. 370,1 L. R. A. 414;Nicholls v. Wentworth, 100 N. Y. 455, 3 N. E. 482;Ward v. Warren, 82 N. Y. 265;Parker v. Foote, 19 Wend. 309, 312; Godd. Easem. 90; Washb. Easem. (4th Ed.), 123; 19 Am. & Eng. E......