Case Name: KETCHUM v. EDWARDS
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896-06-23
Citations: 39 N.Y.S. 1012
Docket Number: 
Parties: KETCHUM v. EDWARDS.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 39
Pages: 1012–1016

Head Matter:
KETCHUM v. EDWARDS.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
June 23, 1896.)
1. Judgment—Description of Right op Wav.
In an action to compel the removal oí obstructions from a right of way, a judgment “that the defendant shall remove all obstructions from the right of way two rods wide extending from the southerly end of the highway near the residence of the defendant southerly to the said three-rod road,” sufficiently describes the location of such right of wray, as the only thing that remains to be done is to find'the particular boundaries thereof. Bartlett, J., dissenting.
2. Same—Collateral Attack—Contempt Proceedings.
A judgment cannot be attacked in a proceeding to punish defendant for contempt in disobeying the judgment.
3. Reference—To Take Proof and Report.
In an action to compel the removal of obstructions from a right of way it is proper to refer the matter to a referee to take proof and report.
Appeal from special term, Suffolk county.
Action by Daniel W. Ketchum against Frances Edwards to com■pel the removal of certain obstructions from plaintiff’s right of way. From an order adjudging defendant in contempt for disobeying a decree in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before PRATT, CULLEN, BARTLETT, and HATCH, JJ.
Nicoll Floyd, for appellant.
Elliot J. Smith, for respondent.

Opinion:
PRATT, J.
This is an appeal from an order of the special term, •adjudging the defendant in contempt for disobedience óf a decree made in an action between the parties hereto. The complaint in "that action described the land of the plaintiff and the two rights of way which he claimed. The defendant appeared in the action by-Hon. Wilmot M. Smith, and answered, but before judgment the an swer was withdrawn, and judgment was taken by default, in accordance with the claim set up in the complaint. The judgment is) in the following form:
"N. Y. Supreme Court, Suffolk County.
"Daniel W. Ketchum against Frances Edwards. Judgment entered May 6th,
1895, at 1 p. m.
"The summons and complaint in the above-entitled action having been duly served on the defendant on the 30th day of November, 1894, and the defendant having duly appeared and answered by Wilmot M. Smith, Esq., and the said Wilmot M. Smith, Esq., having on the 14th day of December, 1895, by notice in writing, withdrawn the said answer, and this action having been duly noticed for trial at the Suffolk county circuit for April 15th, 1895, and having been regularly called on the calendar, and the plaintiff and his witnesses having been examined under oath, and on motion of Elliott J. Smith, the plaintiff's attorney, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the plaintiff, Daniel W. Ketchum, have judgment against the defendant, Frances Edwards, and judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant, as follows: (1) That the defendant shall remove- all obstructions from the three-rod road laid out or hereafter to be laid out in the village of Oentre-Moriehes, county of Suffolk, the middle line of which is described as follows: Beginning on the west shore of East Senix creek, at a stake in or near the middle of the dock, about 12 rods southerly from Alanson Edwards' house; thence running north, 75 deg. 30 min. west, 14 chains, 20 links, in a straight line, to a stake set up on the east shore of West Senix creek, adjoining late land of Alanson Edwards, deceased. (2) That the defendant shall remove all obstructions from the right of way two rods wide extending from the southerly end of the highway near the residence of the defendant southerly to the said three-rod road. (3) That the defendant, Frances Edwards, is hereby forever restrained from erecting or maintaining any obstruction on said road or right of way. • (4) That the plaintiff, Daniel W. Ketchum, recover from the defendant, Frances Edwards, the sum of six cents damages and thirty-five si/100 dollars costs of this action.
"Dated April 17th, 1895."
TMs very plainly describes the location of the two described rights of way, and then locates more especially the one two rods wide that commences at the end of the road near the defendant's house. This judgment was duly served on the defendant, and was perfectly understood by her, and was willfully violated. There could not possibly be any mistake about the road two rods wide commencing at the end of the old country road near defendant's house. The evidence is that she not only obstructed this at its commencement, but built a fence clear across the peninsula from one creek to the other. The proceedings were regular and proper. It was proper to refer the matter to a referee, to take proof and report the same for the information of the court. Code Civ. Proc. § 1015. It is too late to attack the judgment in this proceeding. To claim that defendant was ignorant of the provisions of the judgment, or of its application, or what it described, or the location of the right of way, is puerile,, and against the great weight of evidence.
The order should be affirmed, with costs.