Wynkoop v. Burger

12 Johns. 222
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1815
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 12 Johns. 222 (Wynkoop v. Burger) 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
Wynkoop v. Burger, 12 Johns. 222 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1815).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The judgment of the court below must be i affirmed. The right of way is established by grant; and there is, of course, no necessity for presuming a grant, from the long acquiescence in the use of the way. The grant does not designate the precise place; but the length of time the way has been used in a particular place shows the location by the„ acts and acquiescence of the parties. It would be extremely*' unjust to allow the plaintiff in error, to be changing this road whenever he pleased. As it is a private way for the accommodation of the defendant in error, it must be kept in repair at his own expense. With respect to the alteration, at the place called the canoe place, it is fairly to be intended, that it was done by the consent of the defendant in error, as it has been used by him, since it was altered, for such length of time as to show an acquiescence in the alteration. But it is not so with respect to the alteration made at the corner, designated upon the map produced to the court, by the letter B : and this alteration is evidently injurious to the defendant in error, as it increases the distance of travelling, in a small degree. Whether the damages recovered do not exceed the injury, is a question which we cannot notice here.

J udgment affirmed.

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

Related

Lamont v. Haig
539 F. Supp. 552 (D. South Dakota, 1982)
Hydraulic Power Co. v. Pettibone Cataract Paper Co.
112 Misc. 528 (New York Supreme Court, 1920)
Mary Helen Coal Co. v. Hatfield
83 S.E. 292 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1914)
Winslow v. City of Vallejo
84 P. 191 (California Supreme Court, 1906)
O'Brien v. Goodrich
58 N.E. 151 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1900)
Peabody v. Chandler
42 A.D. 384 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)
Hines v. Hamburger
14 A.D. 577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1897)
City of Sarcoxie v. Wild
64 Mo. App. 403 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1896)
Kinney v. Hooker
65 Vt. 333 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1892)
Vicksburg & Meridian R. R. v. Barrett
67 Miss. 579 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1890)
Indianapolis & Vincennes Railroad v. Reynolds
19 N.E. 141 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1888)
Chase v. Perry
132 Mass. 582 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1882)
Jaqui v. Johnson
26 N.J. Eq. 321 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1875)
Karmuller v. Krotz
18 Iowa 352 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1865)
Jennison v. Walker
77 Mass. 423 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1860)
Hamilton v. White
4 Barb. 60 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 Johns. 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wynkoop-v-burger-nysupct-1815.