Costa v. Benger

New York Court of Appeals

Costa v. Benger

173 N.E. 843, 254 N.Y. 510, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 1091

DecidedMay 15, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 173 N.E. 843 (Costa v. Benger) 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

Costa v. Benger, 173 N.E. 843, 254 N.Y. 510, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 1091 (N.Y. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In the deed from Randall "to Hawley the grantor did not strictly adhere to the boundaries designated on the Loring map. No distances were given and no map mentioned. The parcel conveyed by that deed was bounded on the north by a fence and, therefore, the line of division between the lands of the parties was defined by that monument. The finding at Special Term that the stumps of posts remaining under ground at the time of the trial mark the fine of the fence as it existed at the date of the Randall deed is supported by the weight of evidence.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Cabdozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur; Lehman, J., not sitting.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Per Curiam.

In the deed from Randall "to Hawley the grantor did not strictly adhere to the boundaries designated on the Loring map. No distances were given and no map mentioned. The parcel conveyed by that deed was bounded on the north by a fence and, therefore, the line of division between the lands of the parties was defined by that monument. The finding at Special Term that the stumps of posts remaining under ground at the time of the trial mark the fine of the fence as it existed at the date of the Randall deed is supported by the weight of evidence.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Cabdozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur; Lehman, J., not sitting.

Judgment accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 N.E. 843, 254 N.Y. 510, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 1091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/costa-v-benger-ny-1930.