Gribben v. Hastings Homes Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gribben v. Hastings Homes Co.

152 A.D. 886

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 152 A.D. 886 (Gribben v. Hastings Homes Co.) 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

Gribben v. Hastings Homes Co., 152 A.D. 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The evidence of the right of the-plaintiff to have Euclid ■

avenue maintained with a width of thirty feet is found in the description in the deed to his predecessor Dressner, and the intention expressed therein may be deemed somewhat strengthened by the delineation of Euclid avenue on map No. 1432 and the deed referring thereto given to Perot. But the evidence clearly shows that Euclid avenue did not physically exist northerly and easterly beyond lot No. 1 at the time of the Dressner purchase, nor is there to be found in the deed any such description of .it or intention that there should be such extension, and as the grant was not induced by map No. 1432 it cannot be used for the purpose of proving that such extension existed. The judgment should be modified accordingly, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Hirsehberg, Biut, Thomas, Carr and Woodward, JJ., concurred. Judgment modified, in accordance with opinion, and as modified affirmed, without costs.

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

Per Curiam:

The evidence of the right of the-plaintiff to have Euclid ■

avenue maintained with a width of thirty feet is found in the description in the deed to his predecessor Dressner, and the intention expressed therein may be deemed somewhat strengthened by the delineation of Euclid avenue on map No. 1432 and the deed referring thereto given to Perot. But the evidence clearly shows that Euclid avenue did not physically exist northerly and easterly beyond lot No. 1 at the time of the Dressner purchase, nor is there to be found in the deed any such description of .it or intention that there should be such extension, and as the grant was not induced by map No. 1432 it cannot be used for the purpose of proving that such extension existed. The judgment should be modified accordingly, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Hirsehberg, Biut, Thomas, Carr and Woodward, JJ., concurred. Judgment modified, in accordance with opinion, and as modified affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A.D. 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gribben-v-hastings-homes-co-nyappdiv-1912.