From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Town of North Hempstead v. Leeds

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 1, 1917
180 App. Div. 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)

Opinion

October, 1917.


It is concluded that the defendant has not title to the locus in quo, through herself or predecessors, by allotment, by grant, or by adverse possession, but that she has a prescriptive right to use the dam and its appliances for the purposes of the mill, to the degree that it has been operated, and to flood the locus in quo and draw the water therefrom for such purpose. The possession of the plaintiff is subject to that right, and the verdict should have so provided. A new trial is granted, with costs, except in this court, to abide the event, unless the plaintiff shall within twenty days stipulate to amend the verdict and judgment so as to protect the defendant's rights as indicated; in which event the judgment, as so modified, and the order are affirmed, without costs in this court. Jenks, P.J., Thomas, Stapleton, Rich and Blackmar, JJ., concurred.


Summaries of

Town of North Hempstead v. Leeds

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 1, 1917
180 App. Div. 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)
Case details for

Town of North Hempstead v. Leeds

Case Details

Full title:TOWN OF NORTH HEMPSTEAD, Respondent, v. LOUISE H. LEEDS, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 1, 1917

Citations

180 App. Div. 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)