In Ludlow v. N.Y. H.R.R. Co. (12 Barb. 440) the plaintiff for two years after the forfeiture, saw the defendant making large expenditures upon the premises and extending its road so that he knew that his entry would disjoint the line of the defendant.
Summary of this case from Trustees of Union College v. City of N.YMay, 1911.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Jenks, P.J., Thomas, Carr, Woodward and Rich, JJ., concurred.
In Ludlow v. N.Y. H.R.R. Co. (12 Barb. 440) the plaintiff for two years after the forfeiture, saw the defendant making large expenditures upon the premises and extending its road so that he knew that his entry would disjoint the line of the defendant.
Summary of this case from Trustees of Union College v. City of N.YFull title:The Ludlow Realty Company, Respondent, v. The City of New York, Appellant
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Date published: May 1, 1911
But it is further claimed that the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of this…
Trustees of Union College v. City of N.YThe decisions which have determined a waiver may be discriminated. In Ludlow v. N.Y. H.R.R. Co. (12 Barb.…