Fobes v. Rome, Watertown & Ogdensburg R. R.
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of supreme court, general term, fourth department, affirming judgment in favor of plaintiff.
1Opinion of the CourtPeckham, J.
We think that the defendant has by its exceptions duly raised the question argued before us. We are also of the opinion that the plaintiff’s lot is bounded by the exterior line of the street in question, and that he has no title to the land to the center of the street subject to the public easement. The courts below held that the occupation and appropriation by defendant of a part of the plaintiff’s easement in Franklin street is and always has been unlawful. To that conclusion the defendant excepted.
It admits that plaintiff had an easement in that street, but it denies that it has occupied…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Story v. . New York Elevated R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1882
- The People v. . KerrNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
- Lahr v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Williams v. . the New-York Central Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Craig v. . Rochester City Brighton R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1868
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Sauer v. City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Muhlker v. New York & Harlem RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- In Re Board of Rapid Transit RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
- Brown v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Kane v. New York Elevated RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.