McLarney v. Pettigrew

New York Court of Common Pleas

McLarney v. Pettigrew

3 E.D. Smith 111

DecidedMay 15, 1854

StatusPublished

This text of 3 E.D. Smith 111 (McLarney v. Pettigrew) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McLarney v. Pettigrew, 3 E.D. Smith 111 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1854).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court. Ingraham, First J.

The facts, as found by the referee, are that the plaintiff and the defendant, being owners of adjoining lots, agreed that if the plaintiff would give the defendant permission to insert the beams of his house which he was about erecting, into the wall of the plaintiff’s house, the defendant would pay to him $100 therefor. That the plaintiff did allow the said defendant to insert his beams in the wall and that the agreement was not in writing.

The referee reported for the plaintiff, and the defendant now asks to set aside the report on the ground that the contract was void under the statute of frauds.

There is nothing in the contract giving the defendant any interest in the land. Whenever the wall shall be removed, the plaintiff’s title to the land will remain unimpaired and the defendant would have no claim to rebuild the wall on the plaintiff’s lot or to use any other wall the plaintiff might build. (4 Sand. S. C. R. p. 480). It is a mere license to insert the beams in the present wall, without any interest in the land on which the wall stands. (6 Hill, 61; 3 Kent’s Com., 452; 2 Selden, 279.) A license of this- kind is not within the statute. The evidence also shows an execution of the agreement, and a promise to pay for the permission granted, if the papers were brought, and that the [113]*113papers were so brought, but objected to by the defendant. In what particular, if any, they were objected to, does not appear. Under such a state of facts the defendant would be liable.

The judgment should be affirmed.

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

By the Court. Ingraham, First J.

The facts, as found by the referee, are that the plaintiff and the defendant, being owners of adjoining lots, agreed that if the plaintiff would give the defendant permission to insert the beams of his house which he was about erecting, into the wall of the plaintiff’s house, the defendant would pay to him $100 therefor. That the plaintiff did allow the said defendant to insert his beams in the wall and that the agreement was not in writing.

The referee reported for the plaintiff, and the defendant now asks to set aside the report on the ground that the contract was void under the statute of frauds.

There is nothing in the contract giving the defendant any interest in the land. Whenever the wall shall be removed, the plaintiff’s title to the land will remain unimpaired and the defendant would have no claim to rebuild the wall on the plaintiff’s lot or to use any other wall the plaintiff might build. (4 Sand. S. C. R. p. 480). It is a mere license to insert the beams in the present wall, without any interest in the land on which the wall stands. (6 Hill, 61; 3 Kent’s Com., 452; 2 Selden, 279.) A license of this- kind is not within the statute. The evidence also shows an execution of the agreement, and a promise to pay for the permission granted, if the papers were brought, and that the [113]*113papers were so brought, but objected to by the defendant. In what particular, if any, they were objected to, does not appear. Under such a state of facts the defendant would be liable.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 E.D. Smith 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclarney-v-pettigrew-nyctcompl-1854.