Second Methodist Episcopal Church in Greenwich v. Humphrey

New York Court of Appeals

Second Methodist Episcopal Church in Greenwich v. Humphrey

36 N.E. 812, 142 N.Y. 137, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 616, 97 Sickels 137, 1894 N.Y. LEXIS 728

DecidedApril 10, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 36 N.E. 812 (Second Methodist Episcopal Church in Greenwich v. Humphrey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Second Methodist Episcopal Church in Greenwich v. Humphrey, 36 N.E. 812, 142 N.Y. 137, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 616, 97 Sickels 137, 1894 N.Y. LEXIS 728 (N.Y. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The deed from Phineas Dixon to Hyatt reserves from the grant the lot sold to the plaintiff. It is *140 through this deed that defendant claims title. Her mediate grantor, Phineas Dixon, thus not only reserves the plaintiff’s lot from the conveyance to Hyatt, but he recognizes the title of the plaintiff and admits its existence. The evidence in the case plainly locates the lot thus sold. At the very time of the conveyance to Hyatt, there was a fence around the lot of the plaintiff, as now claimed by it, and the fence had been built at that time for at least ten years. The lot sold the plaintiff is thus identified and located practically. No one claiming through the Hyatt deed can dispute the title of the plaintiff to the lot which had been sold to it.

We see no error in the record and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The deed from Phineas Dixon to Hyatt reserves from the grant the lot sold to the plaintiff. It is *140 through this deed that defendant claims title. Her mediate grantor, Phineas Dixon, thus not only reserves the plaintiff’s lot from the conveyance to Hyatt, but he recognizes the title of the plaintiff and admits its existence. The evidence in the case plainly locates the lot thus sold. At the very time of the conveyance to Hyatt, there was a fence around the lot of the plaintiff, as now claimed by it, and the fence had been built at that time for at least ten years. The lot sold the plaintiff is thus identified and located practically. No one claiming through the Hyatt deed can dispute the title of the plaintiff to the lot which had been sold to it.

We see no error in the record and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 N.E. 812, 142 N.Y. 137, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 616, 97 Sickels 137, 1894 N.Y. LEXIS 728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/second-methodist-episcopal-church-in-greenwich-v-humphrey-ny-1894.