Voorhees v. Burchard
New York Supreme Court
This was an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon the report of a referee. The action was trespass, for entering the plaintiff’s close and drawing and leaving logs thereon. The defendant claimed a right to enter, &c., under one Brady, who he alleged to be owner of the freehold. The defendant also claimed that the locus in quo was a public highway, and alleged a right in the public, l)y prescription, to pile logs on the land.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon the report of a referee. The action was trespass, for entering the plaintiff’s close and drawing and leaving logs thereon. The defendant claimed a right to enter, &c., under one Brady, who he alleged to be owner of the freehold. The defendant also claimed that the locus in quo was a public highway, and alleged a right in the public, l)y prescription, to pile logs on the land. The facts, as they appeared upon the trial, are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Mullís, P. J.
In 1840, and for a long time prior thereto, Ransom Rathbone owned the property in question, together with a large quantity of land adjoining. On the premises so owned a saw-mill was erected in 1840; and for a period thereafter of some twenty-five years logs, drawn to be sawed in the saw-mill, were piled on the locus in quo and other lands adjoining. From time to time portions of the lands on which logs were piled were sold, and thereafter the logs were piled on the remaining lands. The only place remaining on which logs may be piled is the locus in quo. The only way to the mill…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Huttemeier v. . AlbroNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Le Roy v. PlattNew York Court of Chancery · 1833
- Oakley v. StanleyNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Lawrence v. DelanoThe Superior Court of New York City · 1849
3Cited by1 opinion
- Prime v. Twenty-Third Street RailroadThe Superior Court of New York City · 1876