Case Name: Conkey v. Kenyon
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-09-14
Citations: 20 N.Y.S. 313
Docket Number: 
Parties: Conkey v. Kenyon.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 20
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
Conkey v. Kenyon.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.
September 14, 1892.)
Appeal—Objections not Raised Below.
A judgment for plaintiff, in an action for trespass by defendant’s cattle, will not be disturbed, on appeal, on the ground that it does not affirmatively appear that the alleged trespass was committed in the state, or that plaintiff owned, or was in possession of, the locus in quo, or of the property injured, as such objections are technical, and cannot be taken advantage of on appeal, unless they are specifically raised in the court below.
Appeal from St. Lawrence county court.
Trespass quare clausum fregit by Almyron Conkey against Charles Kenyon. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appealed. Judgment affirmed.
The opinion of County Judge Kellogg is as follows:
“It is contended the complaint and evidence do not affirmatively show the alleged trespass was committed in this state; that it does not affirmatively appear that plaintiff owned or was in possession of the farm on which the trespass was committed, or of the property injured, and that, therefore, the motion for a nonsuit was erroneously denied; that it does not appear affirmatively that the injured crops examined by some of the witnesses, and as to which they testified, were the crops in question. Had these objections been specifically raised in the court below, the omission, if any, might have been supplied; not having been so raised," they should not now be considered as a ground for reversal. Burns v. City of Schenectady, 24 Hun, 10; Mallory v. Insurance Co., 47 N. Y. 52; Binsse v. Wood, 37 N. Y. 532. Here the evi denee is sufficient to sustain the finding that the defendant’s cattle broke and' entered plaintiff’s close, and injured his crops, and that he thereby suffered’ the damage awarded. After carefully considering the.case, no error appears, calling for a reversal. Judgment affirmed.”
Argued before Mayham, P. J., and Putnam and Herrick, JJ.
D. M. Robertson, ( Walter E. Ward, of counsel,) for appellant. Chamberlain & Hale, (Worth Chamberlain, of counsel,) for respondent.

Opinion:
Mayham, P. J.
The complaint before the justice was for trespass upon the plaintiff's farm and injury to the plaintiff's crops. The answer was a denial, and an allegation that the trespass was caused by the defective division fence, which plaintiff was bound to maintain. On the trial the-evidence tended to show that the premises on which the alleged trespass was-committed were in St. Lawrence county, but no direct proof of the town or county in which the locus in quo was situate was given. The justice ordered judgment, from which an appeal was taken to the county court, when the judgment of the justice was affirmed, and the defendant- appeals to this court.. We think the judgment should be affirmed for the reason stated in the opinion of the county judge. There was sufficient evidence before the justice-to uphold the judgment, and the objections raised here were not specifically made in the court below. As they are of a technical character, they should have been specifically stated before the justice, so that the defects of proof, if any, could have been obviated, or an opportunity given for that purpose.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.