Town of Amherst v. Tide Water Oil Sales Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Town of Amherst v. Tide Water Oil Sales Corp.

241 A.D. 912

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

DecidedMay 15, 1934

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 241 A.D. 912 (Town of Amherst v. Tide Water Oil Sales Corp.) 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

Town of Amherst v. Tide Water Oil Sales Corp., 241 A.D. 912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law and new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The pipe line used for the conveyance of gasoline from railway tank ears to the storage tanks of the defendant’s filling station was not a nuisance as matter of law where it crossed the village highway. The fee of the road where the pipe line was laid was not owned by the municipality having jurisdiction of the locality. No legislative enactment required a permit as a prerequisite to the construction of such a pipe line in or across a highway of the village where the pipe line was laid at the time it was originally constructed, nor has a permit been made obligatory for the maintenance of such a construction subsequently. The line did not interfere with highway uses; it was not inherently- dangerous when in proper repair. An owner of the fee may use the land within the highway limits for any lawful purpose which does not interfere with highway use. (McCarthy v. City of Syracuse, 46 N. Y. 194; Town of Clarendon v. Medina Quarry Co., 102 App. Div. 217; Hubbard v. Sadler, 104 N. Y. 223.) The pipe line in question may have constituted a nuisance, but whether or not that shall be found to be the fact will depend on proof. We reach the conclusion merely that it was not one per se. All concur.

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

Judgment reversed on the law and new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The pipe line used for the conveyance of gasoline from railway tank ears to the storage tanks of the defendant’s filling station was not a nuisance as matter of law where it crossed the village highway. The fee of the road where the pipe line was laid was not owned by the municipality having jurisdiction of the locality. No legislative enactment required a permit as a prerequisite to the construction of such a pipe line in or across a highway of the village where the pipe line was laid at the time it was originally constructed, nor has a permit been made obligatory for the maintenance of such a construction subsequently. The line did not interfere with highway uses; it was not inherently- dangerous when in proper repair. An owner of the fee may use the land within the highway limits for any lawful purpose which does not interfere with highway use. (McCarthy v. City of Syracuse, 46 N. Y. 194; Town of Clarendon v. Medina Quarry Co., 102 App. Div. 217; Hubbard v. Sadler, 104 N. Y. 223.) The pipe line in question may have constituted a nuisance, but whether or not that shall be found to be the fact will depend on proof. We reach the conclusion merely that it was not one per se. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D. 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-amherst-v-tide-water-oil-sales-corp-nyappdiv-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack