Lehigh Valley Railroad v. Pyle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lehigh Valley Railroad v. Pyle

20 A.D.2d 954, 248 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4109

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

DecidedApril 2, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 954 (Lehigh Valley Railroad v. Pyle) 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

Lehigh Valley Railroad v. Pyle, 20 A.D.2d 954, 248 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without Costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: The sole issue presented toy the parties on this appeal is whether the conveyance of 1872 to plaintiff vested in it an absolute fee or a fee on special limitation. We find that an absolute fee was conveyed. (Nichols v. Haehn, 8 A D 2d 405, 409; Corning v. Lehigh Val. R. R. Co., 14 A D 2d 156.) In affirming the decision of the trial court on this issue, we direct attention to the fact that the proposed findings and at least one conclusion of law of both parties, which were passed upon toy the trial court, contain many factual findings for which there is no 'basis in the record on appeal or submitted exhibits. Such findings and conclusion have 'been disregarded by us. (Appeal from a judgment of Cayuga Trial and Special Term adjudging plaintiff to be the owner of certain real property and placing the action on the Trial Term for purposes of determining fair and reasonable rental value.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without Costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: The sole issue presented toy the parties on this appeal is whether the conveyance of 1872 to plaintiff vested in it an absolute fee or a fee on special limitation. We find that an absolute fee was conveyed. (Nichols v. Haehn, 8 A D 2d 405, 409; Corning v. Lehigh Val. R. R. Co., 14 A D 2d 156.) In affirming the decision of the trial court on this issue, we direct attention to the fact that the proposed findings and at least one conclusion of law of both parties, which were passed upon toy the trial court, contain many factual findings for which there is no 'basis in the record on appeal or submitted exhibits. Such findings and conclusion have 'been disregarded by us. (Appeal from a judgment of Cayuga Trial and Special Term adjudging plaintiff to be the owner of certain real property and placing the action on the Trial Term for purposes of determining fair and reasonable rental value.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 954, 248 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lehigh-valley-railroad-v-pyle-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack