Uihlein v. . Matthews
New York Court of Appeals
Evidence—Restriction as to Use of Premises for a-Saloon When Removed by Quitclaim Deed—Acts and Conversations of Parties Inadmissible to Contradict Deed.
Read the full summary
Evidence—Restriction as to Use of Premises for a-Saloon When Removed by Quitclaim Deed—Acts and Conversations of Parties Inadmissible to Contradict Deed. Where the owner of a building by an instrument in writing conveyed three inches of land with the right to use his party wall to an adjoining owner in consideration of a covenant by the latter, stipulated to run with the land, that she would not during a specified time use a building to be erected by her for a saloon, and a dispute having arisen as to the title to a portion o£ her lot, the grantor, for a consideration, subsequently executed…
1DissentBabtlett, J.
I am of opinion that the Appellate Division reached a proper conclusion and that the judgment should be affirmed.
A clear statement of the facts is essential to an understanding of the questions presented by this appeal. For several years prior to the month of January, 1899, the plaintiff, McManus, owned the premises situate in the city of Rochester known as JSTo. 161 West avenue, and occupied the same as a saloon and restaurant; West avenue runs east and west. These premises were eighteen feet wide and one hundred feet deep.
The - defendant, Margaret Matthews, was the owner of a vacant lot…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Tallmadge v. . the East River BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Stow v. TifftNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Collins v. TillouSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1857
- Palmer v. . CulbertsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1894