Case Name: Frederick A. Lawrence, Appellant, v. Martha Palmer, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1877-12-11
Citations: 71 N.Y. 607
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frederick A. Lawrence, Appellant, v. Martha Palmer, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 71
Pages: 607–608

Head Matter:
Frederick A. Lawrence, Appellant, v. Martha Palmer, Respondent.
(Submitted November 28, 1877;
decided December 11, 1877,
This was an action of ejectment.
Plaintiff in 1866 sold to Philip. S Palmer, defendant’s testator, his interest as described in the deed “in audio the west half of that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the village of Waterford, in the county of Saratoga, known as lot number 169, and bounded as follows : On the north by lot number 171, on the east by lot number 170, and on the west by an alley, being the west half* of the same premises heretofore conveyed by Thomas Scott to Ira Wilson, now deceased, by lease bearing date the 24th day of April, a. d., 1820. The lease gave the same description and referred to a map. The map showed the lot to be an oblong, with straight and parallel sides and ends, bounded on the west by an alley, of a uniform width of twenty feet wide. It appeared that at the time of the deed there was, and had been for many years, a building on the south part of the half conveyed, which encroached upon the alley as laid out, occupying a strip thereof from the street north about four feet seven inches wide and forty eight feet long.
Plaintiff claimed, in substance, to have acquired title to this strip by adverse possession, and that it should be taken and considered as part of the lot; that the deed to Palmer conveyed the west half, including that portion of the alley thus occupied, and plaintiff there upon claimed and sought to recover a strip of land on the west of a line dividing the lot as laid out in the centre, corresponding with the portion of the alley so occupied. Held, that the rule that the boundaries of land conveyed must be got at by the calls in the deed, when they are definite and distinct, and that no extrinsic facts or parol evidence of intent can in such case be resorted to to vary the description, (Waugh v. Waugh, 28 N. Y., 94; Drew v. Sioift, 46 id., 404), was controlling and determined the case. and plaintiff was not entitled to recover; that the deed conveyed the half of lot 169 with no piece added taken from the alley, and the question whether plaintiff or his ancestors could or did acquire a title to the portion of the alley occupied, free from the public easement, which he could convey, was immaterial.
Esek Cowen, for appellant.
L’Amoreaux & Dake, for respondent.

Opinion:
Folger, J.,
reads for affirmance. All concur, except Church, Ch. J., and Andrews, J., absent.
Judgment affirmed.