Legal Opinion

Kiernan v. Haff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided February 15, 1922Published

1Opinion of the Court

Judgment reversed, with costs, and judgment unanimously directed for the defendant, with costs. We think upon the evidence contained in the record that the maintenance of the barn in question and the toilet, for upwards of twenty-five years, with the acquiescence of plaintiffs’ grantors constituted a practical location of the boundary line in dispute within the authorities. (Katz v. Kaiser, 154 N. Y. 294; Ford v. Schlosser, 13 Misc. Rep. 205.) Blackmar, P. J., Kelly, Manning, Kelby and Young, JJ., concur. Settle order and findings in accordance with this memorandum before Mr. Justice Young.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Katz v. . KaiserNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
  2. Ford v. SchlosserNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1895