Case Name: Thomas J. Smith and Others, Respondents, v. Walter P. Smith and Others, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-03-07
Citations: 177 A.D. 218
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas J. Smith and Others, Respondents, v. Walter P. Smith and Others, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 177
Pages: 218–225

Head Matter:
Thomas J. Smith and Others, Respondents, v. Walter P. Smith and Others, Appellants.
Third Department,
March 7, 1917.
Real property — action for determination of claim to — adverse possession—evidence—production of deed as evidence of title.
Where, in an action to compel the determination of a claim to real property, it appears that the defendants claimed title by a deed to their father from his brother, made in 1863; that at the time of the conveyance and ever since the grantor and his descendants have been in possession of the property, which was never delivered under the deed; that the grantee was well to do, but the grantor was poor and in financial difficulties, and that there is no explanation why possession was not given or why the deed was given, the production of the deed and its record are not much evidence of title, and the case under the circumstances invites the statute of repose, and, hence, a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs should be affirmed.
Sewell and Woodward, JJ., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendants, Walter P. Smith and others, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plain tiffs, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Warren on the 6th day of April, 1916, upon the decision of the court after a trial before the court without a jury.
Chambers & Finn [Daniel J. Finn of counsel], for the appellants.
Jenkins & Barker [John H. Barker of counsel], for the respondents.

Opinion:
Kellogg, P. J.:
The defendants claim title to a great part of the premises in question by a deed to their father from his brother Richard in August, 1863. At the time of the conveyance, and ever since, Richard and his descendants have been in possession of the property, and possession was never delivered under the deed. Powell was well to do; Richard was poor and in financial difficulties. There is no explanation why possession was not given, or why the deed was given. The production of the deed and its record, under such circumstances, are not much evidence of title. Evidently there is something wanting, some fact which has been lost in the long lapse of time. The case, therefore, invites the statute of repose. Under all the circumstances we favor an affirmance of the judgment, with costs.
All concurred, except Sewell, J., who dissented in an opinion, in which Woodward, J., concurred.