Greenwood Lake Improvement Co. v. New York & Greenwood Lake Railroad

New York Supreme Court

Greenwood Lake Improvement Co. v. New York & Greenwood Lake Railroad

8 N.Y.S. 711, 5 Silv. Sup. 522, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 364, 55 Hun 610, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1728

DecidedFebruary 10, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 8 N.Y.S. 711 (Greenwood Lake Improvement Co. v. New York & Greenwood Lake Railroad) 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

Greenwood Lake Improvement Co. v. New York & Greenwood Lake Railroad, 8 N.Y.S. 711, 5 Silv. Sup. 522, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 364, 55 Hun 610, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1728 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Dykman, J.

The object of this action is to restrain the defendant from entering upon and using the land in question, and for the recovery of $1,000 damage for wrongfully using the land for railroad purposes. The trial was [713]*713without a jury, before a judge, and he has rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff has appealed. The trial judge found the facts in favor of the defendant, and found that the company was in lawful occupation and use of the premises in question, to the extent that the same had been used and occupied by the defendant. Such findings required a judgment for the defendant, and they are all supported by the evidence and justified by the law. The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

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

Dykman, J.

The object of this action is to restrain the defendant from entering upon and using the land in question, and for the recovery of $1,000 damage for wrongfully using the land for railroad purposes. The trial was [713]*713without a jury, before a judge, and he has rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff has appealed. The trial judge found the facts in favor of the defendant, and found that the company was in lawful occupation and use of the premises in question, to the extent that the same had been used and occupied by the defendant. Such findings required a judgment for the defendant, and they are all supported by the evidence and justified by the law. The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 N.Y.S. 711, 5 Silv. Sup. 522, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 364, 55 Hun 610, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenwood-lake-improvement-co-v-new-york-greenwood-lake-railroad-nysupct-1890.