White v. Spencer
New York Court of Appeals
Action commenced in July, 1851, for damming a water c lurse, by means of which the plaintiff’s saw-mill, situated higher up the stream, was, as it was alleged, obstructed by hack water. The defendant in his answer denied the material allegations of fact in the complaint.
Read the full summary
Action commenced in July, 1851, for damming a water c lurse, by means of which the plaintiff’s saw-mill, situated higher up the stream, was, as it was alleged, obstructed by hack water. The defendant in his answer denied the material allegations of fact in the complaint. He also set up the following facts by way of defence: that at the place where it was alleged in the complaint the defendant had erected the dam complained of, “there had been erected and maintained, for more than twenty years before (the injury sued for), a mill dam, upon and across the said creek, of the same or greater…
1Opinion of the CourtDenio, C. J.
The defendant’s counsel is correct in the position that, to render the possession and enjoyment of an ousement upon the land of another person, for twenty years or more, a bar to an action by the owner of the land, such possession must appear to have been adverse to the rights of such owner; for if it were by license, and without claim of right, no length of enjoyment would prejudice the title of the proprietor. The idea of adverse possession being therefore part of the legal definition of this species of title, it follows, that a party, in pleading such a title, must allege in terms a state…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Parker & Edgarton v. FooteNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Colvin v. BurnetNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Meyer v. M'LeanNew York Supreme Court · 1806