Freeman v. Thomson

New York Supreme Court

Freeman v. Thomson

3 N.Y.S. 93, 57 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 340, 20 N.Y. St. Rep. 194, 50 Hun 340, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 483

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 20, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 3 N.Y.S. 93 (Freeman v. Thomson) 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

Freeman v. Thomson, 3 N.Y.S. 93, 57 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 340, 20 N.Y. St. Rep. 194, 50 Hun 340, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 483 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Learned, P. J.

The question in this case is whether actions of trespass guare clausum are local in respect to the place of trial. This question has been decided in the affirmative in Easton v. Booth, 19 Wkly. Dig. 552, by the Second department of this court. That decision should control us, until it be reversed. The question arises under section 982 of the Code. This is stated by the reviser, in his note, to be substituted for Code Proc. § 123, excepting subdivision 4, transferred to section 983. In section 123, Code Proc., the words “for injuries to real property” are found. Ho indication is given that any change was intended as to these actions. Besides, “waste” and “nuisance” are included in section 982, Code Civil Proc. And further, it is well known that the action of trespass guare clausum is often used for the very purpose of tryingi title. See Dunster v. Kelly, 18 N. E. Rep. 361. While, then, the language of the section is not as clear as it might have been, we think that the sound construction is that given by the general term of the Second department. A contrary decision Has been made by the city court of Brooklyn, in Polley v Wilkisson, 5 Civil Proc. 135, as to the jurisdiction of that court; but the language of subdivision 3, § 263, Code Civil Proc., gives jurisdiction specially in such actions by residence of defendant, on service, in the city. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and printing disbursements.

Landon and Ingalls, JJ., concur.

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

Learned, P. J.

The question in this case is whether actions of trespass guare clausum are local in respect to the place of trial. This question has been decided in the affirmative in Easton v. Booth, 19 Wkly. Dig. 552, by the Second department of this court. That decision should control us, until it be reversed. The question arises under section 982 of the Code. This is stated by the reviser, in his note, to be substituted for Code Proc. § 123, excepting subdivision 4, transferred to section 983. In section 123, Code Proc., the words “for injuries to real property” are found. Ho indication is given that any change was intended as to these actions. Besides, “waste” and “nuisance” are included in section 982, Code Civil Proc. And further, it is well known that the action of trespass guare clausum is often used for the very purpose of tryingi title. See Dunster v. Kelly, 18 N. E. Rep. 361. While, then, the language of the section is not as clear as it might have been, we think that the sound construction is that given by the general term of the Second department. A contrary decision Has been made by the city court of Brooklyn, in Polley v Wilkisson, 5 Civil Proc. 135, as to the jurisdiction of that court; but the language of subdivision 3, § 263, Code Civil Proc., gives jurisdiction specially in such actions by residence of defendant, on service, in the city. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and printing disbursements.

Landon and Ingalls, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.Y.S. 93, 57 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 340, 20 N.Y. St. Rep. 194, 50 Hun 340, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freeman-v-thomson-nysupct-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack