Perkins v. Perkins
New York Supreme Court
STILLMAN PERKINS sued Almon Perkins in a justice’s court, and recovered $25 damages for making, as was claimed, the latter’s just proportion of a division fence, on a line between lands owned by the parties, which adjoined. The plaintiff’s land was cleared and improved. That of the defendant, adjoining, had been used as a sugar bush and in taking wood from it, and “ an acre or more,” had been cleared.
Read the full summary
STILLMAN PERKINS sued Almon Perkins in a justice’s court, and recovered $25 damages for making, as was claimed, the latter’s just proportion of a division fence, on a line between lands owned by the parties, which adjoined. The plaintiff’s land was cleared and improved. That of the defendant, adjoining, had been used as a sugar bush and in taking wood from it, and “ an acre or more,” had been cleared. The plaintiff had made and maintained the only fence there ever was on the line between the lands of the parties, previous to May, 1863; and the defendant had-never used his adjoining land for…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Balcom, J.
The defendant’s objection to the plaintiff proving the expense of building the proportion of the division fence which the fence viewers decided he should maintain, except by the appraisal of such fence viewers, was properly overruled. It was settled in Bronk v. Becker, (17 Wend. 320,) that such an appraisal - is not *136necessary to entitle a party to maintain an action for the recovery of such expense) and that the same may be proved by witnesses who know or can judge what it was.
The main point relied upon by the defendant’s counsel is that the defendant had the right to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Trustees of Watertown v. Cowen & BaggNew York Court of Chancery · 1834
- Bronk v. BeckerNew York Supreme Court · 1837
3Cited by2 opinions
- Davis v. DavisTexas Supreme Court · 1888
- Kent v. LixMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892