Holloway v. Southmayd

New York Supreme Court

Holloway v. Southmayd

18 N.Y.S. 703, 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 898

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedApril 14, 1892

DocketNo. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 18 N.Y.S. 703 (Holloway v. Southmayd) 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

Holloway v. Southmayd, 18 N.Y.S. 703, 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 898 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Ingraham, J.

The question presented in this case is whether the fee of the Bloomingdale road was included within the property conveyed by a certain deed made by Apthorp and wife to William Jauncey and Mary Jauncey, dated August 6, 1799, and a certain deed made by Apthorp and others to John Shaw, dated July 19, 1799. We have held in the case of Holloway v. Delano, 18 N. Y. Supp. 700, (action No. 1, decided herewith,) that the description in these two deeds includes the road in front of the premises conveyed, and that, therefore, the plaintiff showed no title in the property, and the complaint should have been dismissed for the reasons stated in that opinion. The judgment in this case must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

Ingraham, J.

The question presented in this case is whether the fee of the Bloomingdale road was included within the property conveyed by a certain deed made by Apthorp and wife to William Jauncey and Mary Jauncey, dated August 6, 1799, and a certain deed made by Apthorp and others to John Shaw, dated July 19, 1799. We have held in the case of Holloway v. Delano, 18 N. Y. Supp. 700, (action No. 1, decided herewith,) that the description in these two deeds includes the road in front of the premises conveyed, and that, therefore, the plaintiff showed no title in the property, and the complaint should have been dismissed for the reasons stated in that opinion. The judgment in this case must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 N.Y.S. 703, 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holloway-v-southmayd-nysupct-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack