Case Name: Daniel W. Ketchum, Respondent, v. Frances Edwards, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896
Citations: 6 A.D. 160
Docket Number: 
Parties: Daniel W. Ketchum, Respondent, v. Frances Edwards, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 160–166

Head Matter:
Daniel W. Ketchum, Respondent, v. Frances Edwards, Appellant.
Contempt— violation of a judgment forbidding the obstruction of a right of way — boundaries of the right of way, not stated in the judgment, may be determined by a referee after judgment.
Upon an appeal from an order adjudging Frances Edwards, the defendant in an action, to be in contempt, it appeared that the plaintiff had obtained a judgment in the action which, among other things, required the defendant to “ remove all obstructions from the right of way two rods wide, extending from the southerly end of the highway, near the residence of defendant, southerly to the said three-rod road,” over which latter road a right of way was also claimed in the complaint, and forever restrained the defendant from erecting or maintaining any obstruction upon the right of way two rods wide. The judgment was duly served on the defendant, but she óbstructed, by a fence, the right of way two rods wide.
In proceedings taken to punish the defendant as for a contempt, the court sent the matter to a referee, who determined that the defendant had obstructed, by her fence, the particular 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, as that route was used before the commencement of the action, and thereupon the defendant was adjudged guilty of contempt.
Held, that the order was proper, notwithstanding the fact that the complaint did not definitely locate the right of way over the plaintiff’s land, but merely stated such right to exist in a strip two rods wide, extending from the southerly end of the highway;
That, as the judgment had established that a right of way existed and must not he obstructed, all that remained to he done was to find the particular boundaries of the strip;
That, after the rights of the parties had been established by the judgment, the remedy provided for its enforcement was a matter for the court; and that the court, not for the purpose of determining any right of the parties in the judgment, but to inform itself where the right of way actually was, might properly send the matter to a referee, to the end that, upon the coming in of his report containing the fact found, the court might apply the appropriate remedy.
Willard Bartlett, J., dissented.
Appeal by the defendant, Frances Edwards, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Suffolk on the 13th day of September, 1895, adjudging the defendant in contempt for disobedience to a judgment made in an action between "the plaintiff and defendant; also from an order made at the Suffolk Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Suffolk on the 23d day of September, 1895, denying the defendant’s motion to modify the report of a referee appointed to take testimony in said contempt proceedings.
In this proceeding, taken to punish the defendant as for a contempt of court for obstructing a way, a referee was appointed “ to take proof of the facts showing the exact location of the old ways described in the judgment herein and the acts of the defendant in reference to it before and since the entry of the judgment herein and to report to this court.”
Nicoll Floyd, for the appellant.
Elliott J. Smith, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Pratt, J.:
This is an appeal from an order of the Special Term, adjudging the defendant in contempt for disobedience of 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 answer 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 :
" The summons and complaint in the above-entitled action, having been duly served upon the defendant on the 30th day of November, 1894, and the defendant having duly appeared and answered by her attorney, Wilmot M. Smith, Esq., and the said Wilmot M. Smith, Esq., having, on the 14th day of December, 1894, 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 Eliot 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 Centre-Moriches, county of Suffolk, the middle line of which is described as follows-: Beginning on the west shore of East Seenix creek, at a stake at 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 Seenix creek, adjoining land late 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 defendant, southerly to the said three-rod road.
" 3. That the defendant, Frances Edwards, is hereby forever restrained from erecting or maintaining any obstructions 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 and 81-100 dollars costs of this action.
" Dated April I'Uh, 1895."
This 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. (§ 1015, Code Civ. Proc.)
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.
Hatch, J., concurred; Babtlett, J., dissented; Beowm, P. J., not sitting.