Woodruff v. Paddock
| Decision Date | 09 February 1892 |
| Citation | 130 N.Y. 618,29 N.E. 1021 |
| Parties | WOODRUFF et al. v. PADDOCK. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from supreme court, general term, fifth department.
Action by Delecta H. Woodruff and Almira N. Woodruff against Sophronia M. Paddock to restrain defendant from excluding plaintiffs from using a certain strip of land as a way, and for damages. Judgment at special term dismissing the complaint on the report of a referee was affirmed at general term, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
The other facts fully appear in the following statement by FOLLETT. C. J.:
This action was begun May 2, 1889, to recover a judgment to perpetually restrain the defendant from excluding the plaintiffs from using, as a way, a strip of land one rod in width, extending along the east side of their premises, (lot 45,) and damages for having prevented them from having so used the strip before the action was begun. Their alleged cause of action was based on two grounds: (1) That the plaintiffs are the owners in fee of one-half of said alley, subject to the right of way of the abutting owners and the public; (2) that the strip of land was laid out by the former owner thereof, and of the adjoining lots contiguous thereto, for an alley for the use of the grantees of the abutting lots. In 1826, Josiah Bissell, Jr., owned land now within the city of Rochester, which he subdivided into lots, and designated them by numbers. The relation of these lots to each other, to the streets, and to the alley in dispute is shown by this diagram:
Image 1 (2.78" X 4.55") Available for Offline Print
A map of the land so subdivided was recorded in 1826 in the office of the clerk of Monroe county. August 27, 1830, Bissell conveyed to Peter Lynch lot 45 by a deed in which it was described as No. 45, as designated on the map so recorded. A reference to the diagram shows that this lot was bounded on the north by Tremont street. Through mesne conveyances, simply describing the lot by its number, and referring to the map, John Conolly became, April 7, 1856, its owner in fee. February 1, 1860, John Conolly conveyed it to Cornelius C. Dickson by the description contained in the previous deeds. March 15, 1884, the plaintiffs became the owners of this lot by mesne conveyances, in which it was described as in the preceding deeds. May 1, 1827, Josiah Bissell conveyed to Bartholomew Travers lot No. 42, designating it by its number, and referring to the map. December 9, 1839, Travers conveyed it to Patrick Quigley, describing it by its number and referring to the recorded map, and also bounding it on the west by the east line of the alley. October 13, 1845, Quigley conveyed No. 42 to John Conolly, describing it by its number, by reference to the map, and also describing the west line as follows: ‘On the west by the line of the alley, being the same premises conveyed to said Patrick Quigley by Bartholomew Travers.’ In 1888, Conolly died seised of lot 42, and left a will, which was duly probated November 2, 1888, by which he devised all of his real estate to Henry Anstice. November 10, 1888, Henry Anstice conveyed to the defendant the west half of No. 42 by a deed designating the lot by its number, referring to the map, and also describing it as beginning ‘fifty feet west of the north-east corner of the lot of land conveyed to John Conolly by Patrick Quigley; * * * thence southerly, parallel with the west line of said lot No. 42, to the south line of said lot No. 42; thence westerly, along the south line of said lot No. 42, and the same produced to the east line of lot No. 45 of said tract as laid down on said map; thence northerly, along said east line of said lot No. 45, to the said south line of Tremont street; thence easterly, along the south line of said Tremont street, to the place of beginning.-being the west part of said lot No. 42, and so much of the alley west of and adjoining the lot 42, as laid down on said map, as is included between the north and south lines of said lot 42 produced westward to the east line of said lot 45, with appurtenances,’ etc. Under this deed the defendant entered into possession of the land therein described, and begun the erection of a building on the disputed strip.
Edward F. Wellington, for appellants.
F. E. Drake, for respondent.
FOLLETT, C. J., ( after stating the facts.)
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Hara v. Wallace
...adverse possession has not extinguished their easement rights (see e.g., In re 125th Street In City of New York, supra). Woodruff v. Paddock, 130 N.Y. 618, 29 N.E. 1021, also cited by defendant, involved a four lot subdivision in which the grantor of a single lot to plaintiff's predecessor ......
-
Lewis v. New York & H. R. Co.
...20 years, which has been adopted by the courts as the prescriptive period from analogy to the statute of limitations. 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. W......
-
Rupley v. Fraser
... ... adverse possession, though the rights of the public may not ... be. Cady v. Fitzsimmons, 50 Conn. 209, Woodruff ... v. Paddock, 130 N.Y. 618, 29 N.E. 1021; Lambert v ... Huber, 22 Misc. 462, 50 N.Y.S. 793; Flick's Estate, ... 6 Kulp. (Pa.) 329; Cocke v ... ...
-
Spiegel v. Ferraro
...Supreme Court. II We have long recognized that an easement created by grant may be extinguished by adverse possession (Woodruff v. Paddock, 130 N.Y. 618, 29 N.E. 1021 [owner of servient parcel extinguished easement by adverse use]; see also, Gerbig v. Zumpano, 7 N.Y.2d 327, 330, 197 N.Y.S.2......