Case Name: COUNTRY CLUB LAND ASS'N V. LOHBAUER et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-12-30
Citations: 97 N.Y.S. 11
Docket Number: 
Parties: COUNTRY CLUB LAND ASS’N V. LOHBAUER et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 97
Pages: 11–14

Head Matter:
COUNTRY CLUB LAND ASS’N V. LOHBAUER et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
December 30, 1905.)
1. Injunction—Grounds—Trespasses on Land—Necessary Showing.
In an action to enjoin trespasses on land, plaintiff must, in order to obtain the relief prayed for, prove a right to the possession of the entire premises as against defendants, and is not entitled to relief where the proof shows that defendant is entitled to possession of at least one-half of the premises as tenant in common with plaintiff.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 27, Cent. Dig. Injunction, § 77.]
2. Same—Actions—Issues—Judgment.
Where plaintiff sued to enjoin defendants from trespassing upon real estate, of which plaintiff claimed to be the sole owner and entitled to possession, and the answers demanded a dismissal of the complaint and that plaintiff be enjoined from taking possession of the premises, and the action was tried upon the theory that it was an equitable action for injunction and nothing else, a judgment, deciding that defendants were “possessed of the premises in question and the entirety thereof,” was unauthorized by the issues.
Ingraham, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by the Country Club Land Association against Frederick Lohbauer and another. From a judgment dismissing- the .complaint, plaintiff appeals."
Modified and affirmed.
Argued before PATTERSON, McLAUGHLIN, INGRAHAM, LAUGHLIN, and HOUGHTON, JJ. -
- P. E. Connell, for appellant.
G. S. Espenscheid, for respondents.

Opinion:
PATTERSON, J..
There is no substantial difference between the record as presented on this appeal .and that which was before us on a former appeal, when we reversed a judgment for the plaintiff. 56 App. Div. 306, 67 N. Y. Supp. 909. -The judicial recognition of the claim of the plaintiff to relief, as was there said, depended upon its establishment of title and right to. the exclusive possession of the premises described in the complaint. The court at Special Term had decided that the plaintiff was the owner and entitled to the possession of the premises. We held that the proofs did not show that the plaintiff was entitled to the absolute ownership and possession of the locus in quo, and that, there being no evidence of adverse possession by the plaintiff or its predecessors in title which would constitute the basis of a claim to an exclusive right to possession as against the defendant, the plaintiff had not established its claim for relief. The cause went back for a new trial, and on that trial it was submitted for determination on the same record which had been before us; with the single exception of the introduction in evidence by the defendant of a map, which does not affect the decision of the present appeal. On the second trial judgment was awarded for the defendant dismissing the complaint with costs. Another appeal was taken to this court, and the judgment was reversed, because of faultiness in the findings, and it was remitted to the Special Term for further consideration. The case now comes up on appeal from the judgment rendered thereafter, which was in favor of the defendant dismissing the - complaint on the merits with costs, and also adjudging that the defendants have established that they are entitled to "the entirety of the premises.
- There is nothing -now before us which requires any .change in our decision heretofore made that the complaint should be dismissed, but. the record discloses that the judgment is too extensive in its provisions. This court has not adjudicated that the defendant was entitled in fee to the whole of the locus in quo. It sufficiently appears now that the defendant was entitled to one-half of the premises, as tenant in common. Our former decision was based upon the ground that the plaintiff could not maintain the action or have an injunction against the defendant because his right under the pléadings was such as would inhere only in one entitled to absolute ownership and possession. It was held that the plaintiff was bound to prove not only that it has the possession of the property, but that it had the right to that possession as against the defendant, and that it was necessary for the plaintiff to show that it had become the sole owner of the locus in quo in order to maintain an action in ejectment against another party claiming an interest in the premises and a right to their use. We intimated that, upon the evidence as it' stood,-title to one-half of the premises was in tire defendant Lohbauer, as trustee through conveyances. The whole point of the case, as it comes before tis now, is as to such exclusive ownership and right to possession of the plaintiff as would entitle it to maintain an action in ejectment. On the- last trial, the learned trial judge found much more than we decided on the first appeal. He found that those under whom the defendant claims were entitled to the possession of the premises and the entirety thereof, and that they had and used and occupied them exclusively for a period of more than 40 years, and that his legal representatives and trustees took possession of, used, and occupied the premises as legal owners up to and until the commencement of this action, and that is embraced in the judgment.
We think the above provision of the judgment should be expunged, and that the judgment should be modified, so as to provide that it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the plaintiff has failed to establish an exclusive right to the premises described in the complaint as against the defendants, leaving therein that the complaint should be dismissed.
With this modification, the judgment is affirmed, without costs to either party.
HOUGHTON, J., concurs.