Broiestedt v. . South Side R.R. Co. of L.I.

55 N.Y. 220, 1873 N.Y. LEXIS 154
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 9, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 55 N.Y. 220 (Broiestedt v. . South Side R.R. Co. of L.I.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Broiestedt v. . South Side R.R. Co. of L.I., 55 N.Y. 220, 1873 N.Y. LEXIS 154 (N.Y. 1873).

Opinion

The injunction restrained the defendant from using the street for its tracks and running its trains over them, north of the center of the street, to which the plaintiff's title extended. The defendant makes two points:

1. That the deed to the plaintiff was void, because its possession was adverse at the time. This is not tenable; the possession was not adverse but was under license, by act of the legislature, which only extended to the rights of the public. The entry under this license is presumed to have been in subordination to the rights of the owner, and there is no evidence against this presumption.

2. It is urged that the legal right must be first established by an action at law. This was formerly necessary if the legal title was at all doubtful, but, since the Code, this court has held that the legal right may be established and the equitable remedy, by injuction, obtained in the same action. (Corning v.The Troy Iron and Nail Factory, 40 N.Y., 191.)

This case, which we are not inclined to disturb, is decisive against the defendant upon this point. The judgment must be affirmed.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

American Surety Co. v. Conner
166 N.E. 783 (New York Court of Appeals, 1929)
United States Gypsum Co. v. Christenson
197 N.W. 497 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1924)
City of Syracuse v. . Hogan
138 N.E. 406 (New York Court of Appeals, 1923)
Remsen v. NEW YORK, B. & M. B. R.
97 N.Y.S. 902 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1906)
Andrews v. Delhi & Stamford Telephone Co.
36 Misc. 23 (New York Supreme Court, 1901)
Monohan v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
31 Misc. 619 (New York Supreme Court, 1900)
Hinckel v. Stevens
17 A.D. 279 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1897)
Valentine v. Schreiber
3 A.D. 235 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
A.B.N. Co. v. . N.Y.E.R.R. Co.
29 N.E. 302 (New York Court of Appeals, 1892)
American Bank Note Co. v. New York Elevated Railroad
129 N.Y. 252 (New York Court of Appeals, 1892)
American Bank Note Co. v. New York Elevated R. R.
41 N.Y. St. Rep. 531 (New York Court of Appeals, 1891)
Pappenheim v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.
28 N.E. 518 (New York Court of Appeals, 1891)
Galway v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.
28 N.E. 479 (New York Court of Appeals, 1891)
American Bank-Note Co. v. New York Elevated Railroad
13 N.Y.S. 626 (Superior Court of New York, 1891)
American Bank Note Co. v. New York Elevated Railroad
27 Jones & S. 175 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1891)
Purroy v. Schuyler
15 N.Y. St. Rep. 337 (New York Supreme Court, 1888)
Glover v. Manhattan Railway Co.
66 How. Pr. 77 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1883)
Mulry v. Norton
36 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 660 (New York Supreme Court, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 N.Y. 220, 1873 N.Y. LEXIS 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broiestedt-v-south-side-rr-co-of-li-ny-1873.