Van Inwegen v. Port Jervis, M. & N. Y. Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Van Inwegen v. Port Jervis, M. & N. Y. Railroad

58 N.Y.S. 405

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

DecidedJune 6, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 58 N.Y.S. 405 (Van Inwegen v. Port Jervis, M. & N. Y. Railroad) 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

Van Inwegen v. Port Jervis, M. & N. Y. Railroad, 58 N.Y.S. 405 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These actions were tried upon substantially the same pleadings, and upon the same theory, and with nearly the same evidence, as those of the two cases of Van Inwegen v. Railroad Co., 34 App. Div. 95, 53 N. Y. Supp. 1025, and it would serve no other purpose than to incumber the reports to go into a discussion of the points raised. There was evidence which fairly sustains the verdict of the jury upon all of the questions submitted, the learned court delivering a charge which was clearly as favorable to the defendant as it had any reason to expect, and it is not clear that any considerations of justice would be advanced by a reversal of the judgments.

The point urged by the defendant that plaintiff failed to establish a legal title to the property involved does not appear to be well taken, as it appears that the plaintiff, in addition to a paper title, was in the actual possession of the property, and had exercised acts of ownership for'a considerable time, under a contract of purchase. The case at bar presents a very different state of facts from that found in the case of Miller v. Railroad Co., 71 N. Y. 380, and the rule there laid down has no application to the facts now before this court.

The judgments and orders appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

These actions were tried upon substantially the same pleadings, and upon the same theory, and with nearly the same evidence, as those of the two cases of Van Inwegen v. Railroad Co., 34 App. Div. 95, 53 N. Y. Supp. 1025, and it would serve no other purpose than to incumber the reports to go into a discussion of the points raised. There was evidence which fairly sustains the verdict of the jury upon all of the questions submitted, the learned court delivering a charge which was clearly as favorable to the defendant as it had any reason to expect, and it is not clear that any considerations of justice would be advanced by a reversal of the judgments.

The point urged by the defendant that plaintiff failed to establish a legal title to the property involved does not appear to be well taken, as it appears that the plaintiff, in addition to a paper title, was in the actual possession of the property, and had exercised acts of ownership for'a considerable time, under a contract of purchase. The case at bar presents a very different state of facts from that found in the case of Miller v. Railroad Co., 71 N. Y. 380, and the rule there laid down has no application to the facts now before this court.

The judgments and orders appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 N.Y.S. 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-inwegen-v-port-jervis-m-n-y-railroad-nyappdiv-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack