Conkey v. Kenyon

New York Supreme Court

Conkey v. Kenyon

20 N.Y.S. 313, 47 N.Y. St. Rep. 511

DecidedSeptember 14, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 20 N.Y.S. 313 (Conkey v. Kenyon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conkey v. Kenyon, 20 N.Y.S. 313, 47 N.Y. St. Rep. 511 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Mayham, P. J.

The complaint before the justice was for trespass upon the plaintiff’s farm and injury to the plaintiff’s crops. The answer was a denial, and an allegation that the trespass was caused by the defective division fence, which plaintiff was bound to maintain. On the trial the-evidence tended to show that the premises on which the alleged trespass was-committed were in St. Lawrence county, but no direct proof of the town or county in which the locus in quo was situate was given. The justice ordered judgment, from which an appeal was taken to the county court, when the judgment of the justice was affirmed, and the defendant- appeals to this court.. We think the judgment should be affirmed for the reason stated in the opinion of the county judge. There was sufficient evidence before the justice-to uphold the judgment, and the objections raised here were not specifically made in the court below. As they are of a technical character, they should have been specifically stated before the justice, so that the defects of proof, if any, could have been obviated, or an opportunity given for that purpose.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

Mayham, P. J.

The complaint before the justice was for trespass upon the plaintiff’s farm and injury to the plaintiff’s crops. The answer was a denial, and an allegation that the trespass was caused by the defective division fence, which plaintiff was bound to maintain. On the trial the-evidence tended to show that the premises on which the alleged trespass was-committed were in St. Lawrence county, but no direct proof of the town or county in which the locus in quo was situate was given. The justice ordered judgment, from which an appeal was taken to the county court, when the judgment of the justice was affirmed, and the defendant- appeals to this court.. We think the judgment should be affirmed for the reason stated in the opinion of the county judge. There was sufficient evidence before the justice-to uphold the judgment, and the objections raised here were not specifically made in the court below. As they are of a technical character, they should have been specifically stated before the justice, so that the defects of proof, if any, could have been obviated, or an opportunity given for that purpose.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 N.Y.S. 313, 47 N.Y. St. Rep. 511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conkey-v-kenyon-nysupct-1892.