Home/New York Court of Appeals/Gillespie v. . Weinberg

Gillespie v. . Weinberg

42 N.E. 676, 148 N.Y. 238, 2 E.H. Smith 238, 1896 N.Y. LEXIS 546
New York Court of Appeals·Decided January 21, 1896·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We do not assent to the opinion of the trial court that the defendants are not entitled to use the alley in question to cart goods to and from their premises. We think the alley may be used for the passage of teams and vehicles as well as for foot travelers, so far as is necessary to the reasonable and proper use and enjoyment of the defendants’ premises, although their uses and occupancy may have been changed. We so held in Arnold v. Fee (148 N. Y. 214). But as the judgment in no way restrains the defendants from passing and repassing to and from their premises, it should be affirmed.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Gillespie v. . Weinberg, 42 N.E. 676, 148 N.Y. 238, 2 E.H. Smith 238, 1896 N.Y. LEXIS 546 (N.Y. 1896).

42 N.E. 676 (Gillespie v. . Weinberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Henning v. Romeo, No. Fa 96 0070932 (Dec. 4, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 13622 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
953 Realty Corp. v. Southern Boulevard Realty Corp.
50 A.D.2d 731 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
Keeler v. Haky
325 P.2d 648 (California Court of Appeal, 1958)
Missionary Society of the Salesian Congregation v. Evrotas
175 N.E. 523 (New York Court of Appeals, 1931)
Heuer v. Webster
187 Ill. App. 273 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1914)
Peck v. MacKowsky
82 A. 199 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1912)
Weed v. McKeg
37 Misc. 105 (New York Supreme Court, 1902)