Engleman v. . Longhorst
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made February 1, 1887, which ordered a judgment in favor -of plaintiff on a verdict directed at circuit, subject to the opinion of the General Term. The nature of the action and the facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. A continuous wrongful obstruction of a public highway is .a nuisance which any citizen may abate.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made February 1, 1887, which ordered a judgment in favor -of plaintiff on a verdict directed at circuit, subject to the opinion of the General Term. The nature of the action and the facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. A continuous wrongful obstruction of a public highway is .a nuisance which any citizen may abate. (Harlow v. Humiston, 6 Cow. 189; Lansing v. Smith, 8 id. 146; Dygert v. Schenck, 23 Wend. 446; Driggs v. Phillips, 103 N. Y. 77; Hart v. Mayor, etc., 9…
1Opinion of the Court
Follett, Oh. J.
Prior to September 26, 1883, a highway, known as the “ Old Cochecton Road,” extended from a highway south of plaintiff’s farm, northerly thrbugh it to a point west of and near to his dwelling; thence the center line thereof extended north, thirty-four degrees east, five chains and fifty links; thence north, twenty-four degrees east, four chains and fifty links to a higlrway known as the “ Farrows-burg Road; ” thence across the last mentioned highway and beyond in a northerly direction. On the date mentioned, the commissioner of highways, on the written petition and consent of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Smith v. Town of Sandy CreekNew York Supreme Court · 1958
- Buchholz v. New York, Lake Erie & Western RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902