Tunnicliff v. Lawyer
New York Supreme Court
Case, for obstructing the waters in the outlet of a lake, by which the plaintiff’s lands were flowed and injured, tried at ^e Otsego Circuit, and a verdict found for the plaintiff, of a ' 1 $90. The plea was the .general issue.
Read the full summary
Case, for obstructing the waters in the outlet of a lake, by which the plaintiff’s lands were flowed and injured, tried at ^e Otsego Circuit, and a verdict found for the plaintiff, of a ' 1 $90. The plea was the .general issue. On the trial, the defendan* contended for a right to make the obstruction complained of, on the ground that he, and those under whom he claimed,had exercised this right for more than 20 years before the commencement of the suit; and this was the principal • , . question, upon the trial, to which witnesses were exam*ne<^’ The plaintiff’s costs being taxed as Supreme…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
It is not stated with what view the evidence of 20 years’ enjoyment of the right to obstruct was offered ; hut *383we may fairly intend, from the papers submitted, that it was .... . . x , , . ... to establish a prescription. 1 he evidence tended to tins, though it came short of making it out. It is not necessary, to give the plaintiff costs, that the defendant should set up and attempt to establish a title by deed. An attempt to. make out his right by adverse possession, or prescription to have an incorporeal right in the land of another, equally draws the title to freehold in question,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Rathbone v. . McConnellNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Burnet v. KellyNew York Supreme Court · 1854