Paige v. Schenectady Railway Co.
New York Supreme Court
Motion to vacate injunctions.
1Opinion of the CourtHerrick, J.
The plaintiffs in these several actions base their right to the injunction upon the claim that the defendant has *385laid or is about to lay its tracks over and upon lands of which they are owners in fee. Their claim to be the owners in fee of such lands is founded upon the presumption or inference of law, that the owners of land abutting upon and bounded by a public highway, own to the center of such highway.
Very learned briefs with numerous citation of authorities have been presented to me upon this question.
I shall however refer to but a few, and simply indicate, without lengthy discussion,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- White's Bank of Buffalo v. . NicholsNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Haberman v. . BakerNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- City of Buffalo v. . PrattNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Dunham v. . WilliamsNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Graham v. . SternNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Swaim v. City of IndianapolisIndiana Supreme Court · 1930
- Thompson v. Schenectady Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1903
- Beattie v. Schenectady Railway Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
- Lansing v. Schenectady Railway Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
- Paige v. Schenectady Ry. Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.