Liebetrut v. Gaskin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liebetrut v. Gaskin

54 N.Y.S. 909, 35 A.D. 626

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 54 N.Y.S. 909 (Liebetrut v. Gaskin) 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

Liebetrut v. Gaskin, 54 N.Y.S. 909, 35 A.D. 626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

HARDIN, P. J.

There was a conflict in the evidence in respect to adverse possession. It is contended by the appellants that the finding is against the weight of evidence. We have looked into the evidence, and are of the opinion that there was such a contrariety of facts disclosed by the witnesses that the referee was called upon to solve the question, and that there is evidence sustaining his report, and we are not inclined to disturb the same on the question of adverse possession. Barnes v. Light, 116 N. Y. 34, 22 N. E. 441; Railroad Co. v. Brennan, 12 App. Div. 106, 42 N. Y. Supp. 529.

2: The affidavits and the certificate of the referee called upon the special term to exercise its discretion in respect to the extra allowance made. We see nothing in. the appeal book that leads us to the conclusion that the special term abused its discretion. Meyer Rubber Co. v. Lester Shoe Co., 86 Hun, 473, 33 N. Y. Supp. 888.

Judgment and order granting an extra allowance affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

HARDIN, P. J.

There was a conflict in the evidence in respect to adverse possession. It is contended by the appellants that the finding is against the weight of evidence. We have looked into the evidence, and are of the opinion that there was such a contrariety of facts disclosed by the witnesses that the referee was called upon to solve the question, and that there is evidence sustaining his report, and we are not inclined to disturb the same on the question of adverse possession. Barnes v. Light, 116 N. Y. 34, 22 N. E. 441; Railroad Co. v. Brennan, 12 App. Div. 106, 42 N. Y. Supp. 529.

2: The affidavits and the certificate of the referee called upon the special term to exercise its discretion in respect to the extra allowance made. We see nothing in. the appeal book that leads us to the conclusion that the special term abused its discretion. Meyer Rubber Co. v. Lester Shoe Co., 86 Hun, 473, 33 N. Y. Supp. 888.

Judgment and order granting an extra allowance affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 N.Y.S. 909, 35 A.D. 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liebetrut-v-gaskin-nyappdiv-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack