Paige v. Schenectady Ry. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paige v. Schenectady Ry. Co.

82 N.Y.S. 192

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

DecidedMay 6, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 82 N.Y.S. 192 (Paige v. Schenectady Ry. Co.) 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

Paige v. Schenectady Ry. Co., 82 N.Y.S. 192 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Every question now presented was before this court on the former appeals from the orders refusing an injunction. 77 N. Y. Supp. 889; 79 N. Y. Supp. 266. We have carefully examined the evidence produced on the trials, and, while it is somewhat changed from that before this court on the former appeals, we are of the opinion that the changes do not affect the result as then expressed. Even assuming that Washington avenue was laid out prior to August 27, 1664, and that under the Dutch law the fee of the streets was in the sovereign, and also that some of the plaintiffs can trace their title back to a patent granted by a Dutch governor, we are of the opinion that the patents subsequently granted by English governors in confirmation of said grants, and conveying the lands by the same description, resulted in transferring to the grantors the title to the center of the street.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

KELLOGG, J., dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

Every question now presented was before this court on the former appeals from the orders refusing an injunction. 77 N. Y. Supp. 889; 79 N. Y. Supp. 266. We have carefully examined the evidence produced on the trials, and, while it is somewhat changed from that before this court on the former appeals, we are of the opinion that the changes do not affect the result as then expressed. Even assuming that Washington avenue was laid out prior to August 27, 1664, and that under the Dutch law the fee of the streets was in the sovereign, and also that some of the plaintiffs can trace their title back to a patent granted by a Dutch governor, we are of the opinion that the patents subsequently granted by English governors in confirmation of said grants, and conveying the lands by the same description, resulted in transferring to the grantors the title to the center of the street.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

KELLOGG, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 N.Y.S. 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paige-v-schenectady-ry-co-nyappdiv-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack