Garth Estates v. Bronx Parkway Commission

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garth Estates v. Bronx Parkway Commission

177 A.D. 6, 163 N.Y.S. 950, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9397

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 16, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 177 A.D. 6 (Garth Estates v. Bronx Parkway Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Garth Estates v. Bronx Parkway Commission, 177 A.D. 6, 163 N.Y.S. 950, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9397 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This complaint is not one brought under the Code provision (§ 1638 et seq.) for determination of a claim to real property. Averring mistake and asking to reform the referee’s deed, with its charge that through its negotiation to insure its title defendant received notice of plaintiff’s title; also the relief sought to perpetuate testimony, with the remedy by injunction against defendant’s entry or commission of waste on the land — all clearly state a case for equitable relief. Hence defendant’s [7]*7claim, of adverse title did not take the trial to a jury term. The provision (Code Civ. Proc. § 1642) that after defendant claims an estate “ the subsequent proceedings, including the trial, judgment and execution, are the same as if it was an action of ejectment,” does not apply to this suit, which does not depend on the Code, but has its sanction in the general jurisdiction of a court of equity.

The order denying defendant’s motion to strike the cause from the Special Term calendar is, therefore, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Jenks, P. J., Mills, Rich, Putnam and Blackmar, JJ., concurred.

Order denying defendant’s motion to strike the cause from the Special Term calendar affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Per Curiam:

This complaint is not one brought under the Code provision (§ 1638 et seq.) for determination of a claim to real property. Averring mistake and asking to reform the referee’s deed, with its charge that through its negotiation to insure its title defendant received notice of plaintiff’s title; also the relief sought to perpetuate testimony, with the remedy by injunction against defendant’s entry or commission of waste on the land — all clearly state a case for equitable relief. Hence defendant’s [7]*7claim, of adverse title did not take the trial to a jury term. The provision (Code Civ. Proc. § 1642) that after defendant claims an estate “ the subsequent proceedings, including the trial, judgment and execution, are the same as if it was an action of ejectment,” does not apply to this suit, which does not depend on the Code, but has its sanction in the general jurisdiction of a court of equity.

The order denying defendant’s motion to strike the cause from the Special Term calendar is, therefore, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Jenks, P. J., Mills, Rich, Putnam and Blackmar, JJ., concurred.

Order denying defendant’s motion to strike the cause from the Special Term calendar affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D. 6, 163 N.Y.S. 950, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garth-estates-v-bronx-parkway-commission-nyappdiv-1917.