New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-03-11

\ Ssl -
~, b, 70 ,Ss In. q TIE lot g =. s mls
efs. ans NE U sss 20. q he .is,ss q
vi he nO'ei y'rd for Gram and that Il Coz.
rss..e from hotel yard tie , ' 's''.Hss. =
sss.'sa ~ p" &c, sis sshne' and By oLss p-os.
a IN BeskIaan .trsss h. q ne ses
G 1S 9SisT S,s s 90 ~. Ss, ~ sres val. sss
Mr Hone Tho fact Of such occupation 49, -
frrr ssseo necessity include Rat within h. boa .S...
o,eer TO nun Of feet which III. dssd r.'
IL convey him While without nj. strip the Bib. ss
have quite the deed Trustees parpor.i
to sran and especially bsssu. unless this strip iaadsz
the soulery lDe Of Lot No norheTly hoe Of No M
.iss4 Of hens stra'Lt In. e. lad down III. map :,
shout 20 feet right snEes 90 the sor,h .ro
.'v mai What called Jog on tho nObery l'ns Of the
dei'dsnts premises ard adding much a. the wIA
Of The lo described in the deeds tho Bible Society
Tie 81 the surveyor Mr. ser wa. that Cllut,.
Ri, the Hotel schtecturay buiiins snd tSsi
1S Ire little over - lee, Of toe 70 feet $50, a ssS
cntd Tte hoel rryis ADJOINING shey .pp~sr
10 ,dd the drain in qlestioa the plain s premises
the line from the street the alley straight aud
uorsa s down uTon the map whirh tho deeds rsfss
ard this ~ me leaves TO the defendant the full esss
ity Of dcfcrbed IN the deeds under which they cl,
iron careful examination Of tho constrained 10
question included in tho deed to Mr. Hone and |.
bracch In the the Bible Society that the
Jur, must uJon tho evidence have found H. ho-.vsr thu
ss p.e 20 S IL 3. deed to NJ
and hf ,S bad ., ~, - apVs n =
the weight OF evidence thai should be disturbed
but the submitted 70 thc Qucs
There eviiec he psr, % the defendants that s
sr- -lev bui 1881 The erection Of the hotsls
thst ~ scrhehy ws Of that building above the
rce did tho premises in qussioo yet
~ 49,, - -, e-s.iion Il he hot . sad sss.
;s caserv extended the inner essy
q u'cd remises and that ~ westerly wall see
Tens feet from the surface Of the ground.
"a csed so the outlet OF this dain p~s.sss w4y
against the all Of the hotel and carried e.
root and that il boxing thus partially Enclosed three
sides the building extended IL a. the wsh
otbe hotel Upon Of these c'ims there conflicting evi
den ., but there ia t,sn ony to he effect stated
There evidence wholly uneoatrsed that from the time
o. d erection Of The building. h .,,P Of ground In Question:
wsy" remain ed 80 It then until iot7 Ths IL was sssys
never a. BY Tho society BY any person erser
such cccunts That drain from the hotel yard
ved with s on gate end aitsward by wooden ,se wksA
m,,sred by The occur snts OF The hotel u9t SH or s
above stated the construction Of the sewer In
beesmln street TIE o. eRns to Ihs"'erSe' was bc1sd w
In yi,w f these ind other circumstances testified to Ia
spec which there CONFLICT the Jury we're iasr"e
that if th,y .aided thai the decd TO Mr Homo
Traced premises ia dispute, the plaintiff. entitled
reovr unes. they shut on by an adverse possession to
sstoprei and that either o. these eaB' tho plaintiffs may
o IT, and then the Of tho alley only essensnt
Ard again The and belonged to the plaintiffs BY Decd the
by the defendants sufficient adverse possescs
root and the wall took possession than twenty
years ago. then the plaintiffs BY their acquired oasemsaf
an Instructions tAat the ,itls was In ths plaintiff.
the defendants aud that the defendsn; acquire
title by pos,sson a. the time that the plarns
scquir proscrptive title 10 easemen Ia their ows
nature OF an essentnt as well as with the regulates
p'sfson An essemen, right service or privilege.
1he be Acquires The title hs easement tstngsshsa
Title 10 founded la grant, that prescriptions
Which psuHe gfent-esn the owner be pe-pned 20 srmt
to himself all adverse posse must sPprehendedbs
sKclu,iye u the owner.
Taxing the fscls to which hls instruction relates most
fa,oray the dsnesnt tho defendants nclcs tho
f.et " sl on .n.es . oas q, ne hp Va Vr INA ,s
roaf. he Sho "a
ces, and the passage In fact used aud
the roT. OF the not ony use occupy
ercudcd themselves thereou am rot able 10 how
the sniif e can BY such condition Of thns, Do Goa
yerted In anohePs lsDd nor how tho desnd
ants in 'es case can gain the tis by adverse possession
be actual and hostile psse .sionnot mere respass
uch adyere osseon allie eed sud continued holding with
tie sastn night, AID it must be visible and notorious and
BY lin IN whom /. the title Aud NUT be hosle in
.erse that inGot'es an n,sn' TO oeGnIy o'Iuve,y Sc
Lsao: With Am notes, PIP agit6 CspP vs. Breway-
Frost, Cor 30, lie TnInbos We Jac.fon, Corr os
Abe Reybsd st,utes q vol 2ss plainly recognize 70.
ou ard mke eris ~ rte exclusive OF any other night
have locked in vain ter oy evidence that The Bible society
caimtd title to tho premises Ia question: The deiendsnes
hat the Society nee, claimed any right IT, wissesr
nstos the contrary AToher Of tie deiendants Witnesses. an
easvey BY tie Occur ats Of The hotel was cleaned BY
this Of ownership H. bat complained the
ocoursnis o. the hotel II this lot done By them.
Iy tSs dan. Old not Constitute an pos.
session 'gsn the owners OF the hotel property and thst
the jury should Rave boen 50 Instructed.
1t true that 'mous other things, the Jury .oia
hotel exclusively by them then tho
claim Of adverse possession But they also told that
he defendants far back the erection ~
The bic Hog'e that w. snncent adverse possession In
ode IL have en- aien sndsr claim OF idle and have
0le exclusive occupant Of the ground thus partially IN
clo,od y the defendants 10 the owner himsef
Tie other node which the Jury instructed the plain
tits sy have lost their title by estopPe and IN
Of bet subject thy told ths, n tho defendant seed In
good fifth ~ erecting b. nsw buidlDs and the pan,as
they allowed to maintain II Low.
lam sssfed that this instruction correct II q tine
Lsvrer CO nskes This observation; remember
yeo ago, In which Lord hnsdsd would not suffer
in eecment whore be- bad stood by ard
tie defendant build on bis land But have sought In
for any other case In England or IL dis state In whio
wall Ion anoihes land estopped the owner TO claim the n
only silence into license which would
but erecting Kind OF rest
Ing wholly Aro by which real estate 10 TO be Invested, and
IL effect oen'e Jed to the occupant
tho law requires eonyeysnees to he by deed under
seal under the solemn form Of records, there are
esOpIe by deed, sDd esoppels BY record, which
ct parry claiming title But in face Of the statute
should be slow to give TO estoPPe p~
the .yerce Of which 70 rect psroi snd 10 dspeA
epeste 10 defeat e''abshed lead e Per 10
obeyed IN this ese the Jury were tod that " they we're
ria nths may nevertheless haze of By the estopPel Do
! scIitsd
doubtless true tat In determining question " bounds
where The pIo9i. Of location the po.l2s Of moyemsas.
Dpeient evidence, ard sometimes, when relied npop ~
he other party for raD purposes conclusive Estopp~s
! in pAi, are Admissions, and nothing else. -
n. of he Trustee &C. Williams, eWehd, III,
Deuel. Osel. fill, ~, in which The mature and
effect esOyre pals dscused the adinisnIs hsis
esOp sT 40 rston nstte the proof whereof
sy .Td also the In England hearn va
R,gers Barn ard Cre an; Piokard " Sees oAS' Es
Dawes W. Niions ~ H. Si While on the obss
bend the Erd Csha Conn "a Hathaway "en5, sdo.
II. IL nda