Meegan v. Hardenbrook

New York Supreme Court

Meegan v. Hardenbrook

4 N.Y. St. Rep. 896

DecidedDecember 14, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 4 N.Y. St. Rep. 896 (Meegan v. Hardenbrook) 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

Meegan v. Hardenbrook, 4 N.Y. St. Rep. 896 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Dykman, J.

This was an action for damage to real property, tried origimally in a court of á justice of the peace before a jury, where a verdict was ren■dered for the plaintiff for forty dollars. It was again tried in the county court of Queen’s county before a jury, on appeal to that court, and there the plaintiff obtained a verdict for fifty dollars. From that judgment the defendant has appealed to this court.

The injury was doubtless committed under a misapprehension respecting the boundary line between the lots of the plaintiff and defendant, but that im;o ■cent intention does not excuse the wrong, the result to the plaintiff has been the same, and the defendant must answer for the consequences. He sent a person to clear the lots and remove the structures therefrom under the belief that they were upon his land, but a subsequent survey demonstrated his error, .and he was thus left an inexcusable trespasser.

In respect to the corn crib, the jury has found the defendant responsible for -the acts of his son, and the verdict cannot be disturbed in that respect.

The judgment should be affirmed with cost.

Pratt and Dykman, JJ., concur.

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

Dykman, J.

This was an action for damage to real property, tried origimally in a court of á justice of the peace before a jury, where a verdict was ren■dered for the plaintiff for forty dollars. It was again tried in the county court of Queen’s county before a jury, on appeal to that court, and there the plaintiff obtained a verdict for fifty dollars. From that judgment the defendant has appealed to this court.

The injury was doubtless committed under a misapprehension respecting the boundary line between the lots of the plaintiff and defendant, but that im;o ■cent intention does not excuse the wrong, the result to the plaintiff has been the same, and the defendant must answer for the consequences. He sent a person to clear the lots and remove the structures therefrom under the belief that they were upon his land, but a subsequent survey demonstrated his error, .and he was thus left an inexcusable trespasser.

In respect to the corn crib, the jury has found the defendant responsible for -the acts of his son, and the verdict cannot be disturbed in that respect.

The judgment should be affirmed with cost.

Pratt and Dykman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 N.Y. St. Rep. 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meegan-v-hardenbrook-nysupct-1886.