Dempsey v. . Kipp, 61 N.Y. 462

Dempsey Kipp. Statement of case. is laid down Mr. Parsons his work on by He Partnership. “ When a creditor sues says: firm, seeks to the lia- put aof one who is a nominal bility partner upon only partner, is a somewhat difficult whether question can plaintiff recover without that he himself proof believed the person whom he seeks to be a charge partner. authorities are far question unanimous, some holding one forth to the as a world put is liable partner, as such to creditor of the firm ; while others every hold that he is thus liable because he was a only partner fact and in interest, him or because plaintiff one, and regarded dealt with firm in some at least, on his degree, credit. Perhaps rule reasonable be stated thus : Where might one is held forth is, world first was he partner, question so held out his own assent or by authority, connivance, or his by If consent or negligence. authority, connivance, is absolute that he was so held presumption out to every creditor or held customer. If so his own negligence he should be held to a creditor who had only, only misled actually thereby.” 119.) (Page There was no error in the this cause disposition court and the should below, be affirmed. judgment

All concur. affirmed,

Order judgment accordingly. et al., v. James Appellants, N. Kipp, Daniel espondent. R parol consent, Where, given for a under sufficient consideration one proprietors, private adjoining two opened, road is laid out and one- upon each, for the party, half lands benefit of a third the fact that proprietor up portion passing closes the other the road over consent, operative does not annul the but it is still land and effectual to appropriated pursuance thereof, give over the land proprietor portion precisely the same as if the other had left the his land undisturbed. The restriction of the travel to the land Dempsey et al. of case. Statement it, upon and imposes burden given, no new to the consent was as which way. to party the rights of entitled therein the affectthe does not therefore appurtenant tenant, way acquired by as a permanent of

aWhere tenancy it to expiration enures of the premises, at the to demised the of landlord. the benefit the applied to com- premises the to He conveyed E. afterward L. certain One the lay private for his use across highways of to missioner so highway to the land the parties, give access from of third to lands used the out, worked and owners conveyed. road was The parties, one of such third occupants of" with the consent the said way In an action subsequently the over land. obstructed of whom plaintiff, damages, who interference and to recover further to restrain E., that, conveyance at time of the offered to the under show claimed E.,the parol, procure right of agreed,by former the from L. to purchase- purchase, a condition of the highway, the as performed. The evidence money until the retained conditionwas vary Held, error; excluding rule rejected. was evidence application, as invoked instrument had no it could not be written L., in stranger contract; right way procured by to the and that the of pursuance E., passed agreement, of of as such enured benefit appurtenant to the land'.

Dempsey Kipp (62Barb., 311) et al. v. reversed. September term,

(Argued 21, 1874; January 1875.) decided Appeal General Term from judgment Supreme Court fourth judicial department, affirming judgment entered referee report dismissing complaint. 62 Barb.,

(Reported below, 311.) action was The to restrain the defendant brought awith road which it existed was claimed interfering private in the over the defendant’s land favor, and to plaintiffs’ recover same. damages obstructing facts trial: following appeared

In March, John and Thomas were Miller farms in the owners two town of respectively Fayette, farm Seneca south Arnsberger’s county. immediately of one owned Jacob Leddick, between it and the lying and was known lot number nineteen. Miller’s highway, farm on and was known adjoined west, Arnsberger’s lot number Leddick, March con- 9th, 1842, eighteen. to John farm

veyed Espenour, plaintiff’s grantor, above After north of number nineteen. mentioned, lying Kipp;

Statement case. viz., conveyance made, on March sixteenth of the same Leddick year, the- applied commissioner highways aout road for his lay private use. The in his description “ ivas as follows: application at the south corner Commencing of lots nineteen, number north on the running line of said lots the lands of through John Thomas Miller, to the south line of the farm now owned by John and Espenour, me.” by occupied

On the trial, offered to plaintiff show that there was a parol before the agreement Leddick conveyance Espen- our, former should procure out to as a condition highway, of the and that purchase, Espen- our was to retain a until this con- purchase-money dition was performed. The offer was and the rejected, plain- “ tiff duly excepted.

On March 1842, twelve fvee-holders of the town met at the south-west corner of farm with Arnsberger’s (coinciding the south-east corner of and certified in Miller’s) writing road. At the same necessity time and the commis- place, sioners to act assuming and certificate, application an made order in out the road. The writing laying bounda- “ ries of this road are thus : at a stake given stand- Beginning at the south-west corner of ing land Espenour’s on lot number nineteen, thence on the west line of said lot south one west chains degree twenty-five links forty stake the south-east corner of lot number eighteen; it is and further ordered the line above that described shall the west line of the said road, said road shall be of the width of one rod.” This order the road required laid out over the wholly lands of The Arnsberger. found, referee as matter of when road fact, was actually the line worked, fence between the Miller and the Arnsberger farm was removed to the west of the line of lots and nineteen about so that one-half feet, eight roadway was on the farm Miller and the other half the Arns- farm. He further found that berger Arnsberger acquiesced in such a road as that which was laid out,°but stated actually

Statement- of case. he did find that not he ever assented to road one rod all width, to be taken from his farm. own The assent of as he was to such a found, had Leddick for and the certified and applied jurors necessary, such one was actually further opened. show findings the road and worked in some opened, turnpiked sluices across the road on the places, put farm. A fence was built on the east side of the lane, rails cut the timber on the land split growing used, the wood was removed He was Arnsberger. when the interest were

standing by chopping wood and timber on the and did not raise growing any to their work and objection proceeding opening himself as but received expressed having ample therefor. The road was used the manner in compensation which it had been laid Leddick Espenour, until the year 1848-49, when grantee, subsequent grantee the of Miller farm removed the west fence of the lane back to the line and of the lots nineteen. By removal the corners of the fence were set on the worked the The farm road. been sold having Midiólas, tenant, his’ Kipp, Ralph Kipp, proceeded remove the on fence the east side the lane, and to place obstructions of the owners or of the Led- occupants dick farm, so to them This prevent reaching highway.

was done under the claim that such had no occupant legal inte- rest in the road or and had These right way. obstruc- tions were thrown down to time time occupants of the Leddick farm. then Defendant, the Arns- occupying farm, them. berger replaced

The referee’s conclusions of law were the conveyance Leddick to before Espenour Led- (being application dick for the did not transfer to the private road) grantee any interest such road, and that private no interest whatever in the road was private Leddick to conveyed by Espenour, or otherwise to the acres; that all appurtenant fifty for out the road were under proceedings laying void the laws XYI. 59 Sickels—Yol. v.

466

Statement of case. of New and the York, Leddiek, Espenour, plaintiffs for not used road adversely having uninterruptedly no title by prescription. twenty years, gained a dismissal of the was entered for complaint Judgment his report. road The

Burton & Ten for the having Eyck appellants. a lawful with the owner became out consent (Baker even the consent by parol private though 6 acts and admissions Braman, Hill, v. 47.) Arnsberger’s of the acts of confirmation were ratification complete Hill, v. 6 47; Noyer Braman, the commissioners. (Baker v. 461 3 Wend., ; Cow., 571.) v. 6 Ernsberry Corne, Chapin, a conversation between evidence of It was error to receive was said as to what E. Lambert witness N. Kipp him. the latter (Garfield the land when bought about v. 65 Kirk, Barb., 469.) The respondent. proceedings

F. O. Mason re void. (In were private illegal laying 19 Sts., John and 149; Cherry 11 In re Wend., Albany St., 1 v. 3 R. S. 659; Conner, Comst., 511; [1st ed.], Embury id., Baker 6 Braman, v. 4 v. Porter, Hill, 140; 517; Taylor Hall, v. 2 Pritchard 47; 176; Baldwin id., Middleberger, Pearson, 3 91 Bruce v. L., L. E. v. Mer. Ins. Co., 48 Smith, v. Love, id., ; Myers 470 R., Tuttle 534; J. etc., Y., 325.) N. Mayor, McCotter 614; Barb., and ended with Leddiek. (Taylor of private way began right R., 14 J. Hoke, 3 Lambert v. 142; 383.) v. Porter, Hill, deed save what the no the land Espenour rights Baker, v. Kern., 2 Howes 561; v. Sampson, (Renard gave. 10 Vander id., Lewis, 296; R., 3 v. 506; J. Houghtaling not could 2 way Such Cai., right v. Smith, 154.) voort v. 18; Miller Easements, on created by parol. (Wash. and N. v. N. H. 61; 6 Foot Hill, R. Co., R. Syr. A. 35 Barb., and H. Co., v. Y. N. 23Co., Conn., 214; Eggleston 221; 2 Ch., Barb. I. R. R. Co., v. L. 162; Pitkin Mumford 467 et al. t>. Statement of case. Wend., v. 15 3 380; Phil. note Whitney, Ev., 350, 936

; Hilliard on R. 5 & E., 60-64; C., ; B. 233 690 ; 7 Bing., §§ 1 Ad. & v. Ell., ;536 Selden D. and H. Canal 29 N. Co., Such an Y., for 634.) agreement amounted way right ato license to only over and was revocable parol go at will and not Easements, 8, 11; on assignable. (Wash. § 1 Coburn, Cow., Ex 570 v. 15 parte ; Whitney, Mumford Wend., not be 380, 391.) could transferred right deed unless it had, time deed, delivery existence. v. L. R. 2 Ch., I. legal (Pitkins Co., Barb. R. 221; v. 15 If it had Wend., Whitney, 380.) Mumford did existence, it not as an Hil legal pass (2 appurtenance.

liard R. 356, Plant v. 5 B. & P., 62; James, 191; Ad., § Nicholas, v. R. Kenyon 1 To have I., plaintiffs 411.) given to the road there must have been con by prescription tinuous adverse use and uninterrupted thereof enjoyment with the owner’s years, twenty knowledge acquies v. 4 E. cence. C. Green (Carlisle Cooper, J.]; Stuy [N. v. J.,

vesant 1 N. 2 133; Hilliard on R. Woodruff, E., 38 Y., Flora v. N. v. Carbeau, Luce 55; 111; Cartey, § v. 19 451; Vose, id., Foote, 24 Hart 365 v. Wend., Parker ; Ford, 19 Yard v. 2 Wm. 309; id., d., note; 175 Saund., v. 44 Converse, Vt., Plaintiffs’ offer Plympton 158.) show, between parol by Espenour, agreement Led- dick as to who should fence road was properly rejected. v. 15 Whitney, Wend., 380; Stearns v.

(Mumford 5 Tappin, Duer, 294.) it was dead, Arnsberger being inadmissible. It was to receive in

(Code, 399.) proper evidence Espen § our’s he the owner and in declarations, possession farm. v. 4 plaintiff’s (Jockson Bard, ; J. 230 R., Pitt v. 1 Wilder, Comst., 512; v. 34 Gibney N. Marchay, Y., 301; v. Hamilton, Moore 54 A id., -will 666.) not judgment set aside for the admission of an item of improper testimony when it is it could not have apparent affected finding, where there is beside ample to authorize testimony it. (Cary v. Smith Sprague, Wend., 41; v. Kerr, 1 Barb., 155; Brown id., 15; Hoburger, Marshall, Ashley 29 N. an.,

468 [J v. per Dwight, the C. v. id., Vandervoort Y., 494; Gonzales, 59, 60; People 3 Tr. Gould, App., 62.) It counsel for was conceded properly

Dwight, case, in the present proceedings plaintiff, as of the law it existed at out view were, laying time, Porter, void. (Taylor unconstitutional far are so as These only important proceedings Hill, 140.) of the shed the acts grantors plaintiff, bear on they of the consent of the act the nature Arnsberger on light his It over land. was not out the road disputed of laying while the acts of the that, commissioner the defendant have the road were plaintiff might out nugatory, laying consent of Such derived from the Arnsberger. even of equity, must be the law general"principles though if there be sufficient by parol, the consent given frauds. The it the statute of question take out of case to the nature thus narrowed down to between issue On this there some con consent. point of Arnsberger’s has found at the trial. The referee as fact, evidence flict of in his order directed the road the commissioner that though the land of as a over wholly yet, laid out Arnsberger, to be his it laid out over and in land, fact, part matter Miller, that of consented only over that, and not to one rod laid wide, such road I is the This, think, his own land. reasonable over wholly his considered as it whole, findings, though construction is not clear. that his absolutely be admitted phraseology must to sustain cannot some evidence finding, There being of Miller,, in this court. Rogers, grantee be disturbed which his license grantor may given revoked any having defendant, land, to Reddick over portion pass consent claims Arnsberger’s as successor is, stated, His briefly nullified. is thus argument practically one rod wide, consented road, as follows : Arnsberger over one-half over own out, one-half Miller; half, to Miller’s is inoperative, that of road what- to any consent therefore gave Dempsey Kipp. et al. per Dwight, of 0. Opinion —ever not even one of half a in rod width. plaintiffs, on the other insist that consent is still hand, Arnsberger’s operative and effectual as a rod in road, one-half width, over his land. On I own think that point, weight of True, argument plaintiffs. practical acts of the the road not take did effect as parties, exactly still the intended, variation was immaterial as between the inIt increased plaintiffs’ grantor respect Arnsberger.

the burden If land. the road been laid Arnsberger’s on the land both parties, plaintiffs might lawfully have traveled over the lands of wholly They Arnsberger.

could do what he do with a road half a rod precisely might in width. It in cannot law, consent supposed, would have been affected circumstances by change wholly immaterial. Leddick advanced consideration for the road

Moreover, which retained. The latter must be supposed waived variation between his real and thereby any Prima consent. had an apparent facie, plaintiffs on this equitable ground, specific while right, performance; he the whole he cannot have insist on such may the successor is able to him. Had Led- give road was out, when the dick, the owner fee of I should have been of the Espenour’s lot, clearly opinion that, him he as between would have acquired of way. permanent right

I have reached the now as to the effect Led- question acts in relation to He dick’s Espenour. may, first tenant at will instance, considered In Espenour. he character it be assumed that acquired right land The conduct of

way Espenour’s highway. shows their intention Trees should be were cut permanent. down, sluices and fence between the lane and made, were the resi put up due of land. These acts are inconsistent with Arnsberger’s mere use of the fugitive temporary purpose. look to continuance of the road for the use of the They owner. Commission, per Dwight, there

The intention be no clear, appears difficulty the dick, tenant, that Led be medium may whereby holding to his landlord, of He was the passed Espenour. right make the of or to for a sort bailiff agent acquisition As soon as Leddick the it enured landlord. acquired right, It is that all that law, the benefit. settled to landlord’s third the thus from to the tenant persons appertains acquires is even to encroachments made landlord. The rule applied the lands a would it be others; him of fortiori, by upon made of, where the is consent acquisition applicable the of lands. owners with, contract (1 Wash. through adjoining the of Real The cases on encroach Property, 483.) subject illustration. maintain stated of They ment bemay by way a encroaches if while tenant, possession, adjacent a and thus them, and encloses of lands, acquires pre portions a he law to have acted with is title, presumed scriptive his landlord. Undoubtedly, to add to the interest of view is no where there but rebutted, this presumption is rule of uniform application. countervailing proof, v. 6 C. & P., & W., Rees, M. Doe 580; v. Jones, (Doe Hailes, Doe v. Black., 349; v. 2 Ellis & 610; Andrews L. R. Bench, Davies, Lisburne 304; 14 Com. Tidbury, These 11 Exch., 313.) v. Millard, 260 P.], ; Kingsmill [1 a to tenant, even the doctrine year establish cases interest in a adja has a permanent year, capacity acquire of the leased use to third lands persons cent belonging benefit while to his own shall enure which property, shall and on its appertain continues, expiration tenancy difference to be no principle landlord. There appears is contract. by prescription or.by made the acquisition whether In the main intent is inquiry. tenant’s subject The as has been already bar, intent both parties, at case it is all acts taken shown, together, impos From the plain. else tlian to intent was any thing sible suppose at Leddick having, way, continuing right Espenour give to be ter mere out, possession, the road was the time will. minated Espenour’s (cid:127) per Dwight,-0.

Opinion oí the of view. from another point now regarded The ease may that there was at the show, trial, offered plaintiff prior Leddiek Espenour, between understanding parol former, the latter of property purchase should that Leddiek transaction, procure purchase-price portion way, the result. to abide retained the land was to be by Espenour would it been admitted, Had such testimony that if there it must be conceded material In the outset ? have been it could not

been such parol understanding, to the deed. The in evidence between received the terms of is inadmissible to that evidence vary rule parol would have been A applicable. a valid written.instrument cannot invoke rule. however, the contract, to stranger “ the It is there rule Evidence, said, 279.) Greenleaf (1 § instrument, betweenthe to is suits parties onl/yin applied what was if the contains alone are to blame they writing have that which should contained. intended, not or omits Pothier on It cannot affect third (1 Obligations, persons.” 2, Ev., 575; art. 3 2 Stark. 4, Edgerley Evans, p. chap. n; 555; 4 Foster, v. Emerson, Langdon Langdon, Gray, avail In at the defendant cannot himself bar, the case 186.) this rule. It is immaterial 'to him whether the of agreement a of was introduced into to plaintiff’s procure right left to oral deed or understanding. is,

The serious whether only inquiry right way, would under such a p’arol pass obtained agreement, Espe- his land. It would in not certainly nour as appurtenant as the rule that it must in law, a court the view as an hereditament, and under seal, incorporeal writing to the I see view that it with. objection not complied there had transferable would be equity. Suppose that Leddiek deed, a would clause Espenour’s procure and he had fulfilled the him subsequently for right way, in an manner, imperfect obtaining writing agreement — under seal would not that, not equity, belonged If in the so, the result must be the same case ? Espenour al. et Commission, per Reynolds, oí tlie as the for

bar, agreement executed and parol right way, based is of consideration, with equal written validity not under seal. So intended agreement long Arnsberger Leddick had grant permanent right way, agreed one for can be done procure Espenour, justice only holding what substantially accomplished This intended. view is they the fact that strengthened by roads, statute shall concerning private provides they be laid out the use of the heirs applicant, assigns. It thus and it recognizes assignability assumed that the consent of in accordance was, with the idea to a road which statute, was to underlying be transferred which it land to assigned an incident. naturally

If this view to the correct, way passed through the intermediate on Ease- grants plaintiff. (Washburn cases ments, The court below, cited.) accordingly, erred the offer to show the excluding parol agreement between Leddick Espenour. should be reversed. judgment C. The whether the is, question plaintiffs

Reynolds, an interest or such from their own land land claimed the defendant its by upon through being obstructed, closed or an action defendant, can by up sustained for the thus by plaintiffs occasioned or injury must, threatened. The question determined pkobably, the facts found the referee, before whom the by case below, court far and, was tried in the so as I them regard be stated as materia], follows: Prior to Jacob was the owner of the farm Leddick now owned by plain- tiffs, about acres. west line of the Led- containing fifty dick, or was the division mili- farm, line between plaintiff’s lots numbers and in nineteen, the town of tary eighteen Fay- and ette the south line county Seneca; was between land of the of the then plaintiffs defendant, — owned and John the farms both occupied by Arnsberger al. et per Reynolds, and the defendent subdivisions of plaintiffs being lot number referred land nineteen, before to. The military both farms on the one was, 1842, west owned adjoining by Thomas Miller, lot number before military eighteen, being named. In March, 1842, Leddick to John conveyed Espe- nour, and him, derived their 1865, through plaintiffs title to the acre farm. After Leddick fifty conveyed and in aof Espenour, 1842, March, pursuance parol agree- ment him made at the time of his Espenour convey- ance, and 1842, 16th of he March, made application to the commissioners of of the town of highways Fayette aout road for his use, the south lay private commencing corner of lots and eighteen north on nineteen, running the line of said lots, the lands of John through and Thomas south Miller, line of the land of Espenour, then Leddick. This occupied application successful; March, 1842, on the 23d of the commissioners ordered the road to be laid out to the width of one rod, the line making between lots and nineteen the west line of the road, and, of course, of it whole on the land of locating Arns- This road was soon after or berger. opened, be, supposed in this manner: The fence between Miller and the Arns- “ farm was removed, as the referee states, berger the west line of the lots, feet,” about and the road eight opened and turn in some worked, Three piked sluices were places. put in across the on the road, farm, one on the farm; a Leddick fence was built on the east side of the lane, cleared the rails cut and through Arnsberger’s split timber on the and the wood was removed growing from the road In this condition the road Arnsberger. until 1848,

remained when one suc- Rogers, having farm, to the title of the ceeded Miller removed the west (or the lane the line fence, back, on between mili- road) along lots numbers the nineteen, cornel’s tary eighteen setting the of the fence on worked of the in road and on part part across the same. the sluices the owners and occu- Afterward, farm of the took the fence on the east Arnsberger away pants Sicicels—Von. XVI. an., [J per Reynolds, 0.

side of the lane or committed various acts obstruct- the use of the road or ing it; for such any part alleged the action is injuries brought.

It is found the in referee that Arnsberger acquiesced such road as was one-lialf on opened by commissioners, farm Miller and one-half own, on his find but he did not that he ever assented ato road one rod wide to be opened “ on his own farm. The after wholly referee then finds had removed his east fence on line Rogers back between lots numbers in nineteen, thus, crowding fact, the whole road on the I do not find Arnsberger farm, any assent on part tenants, or his or grantees of whom the defendant one, to such location of the road.”

The effect of this I no is, think, more than that finding and his successors in title or did Arnsberger not possession assent to the act of in the fence on the west Rogers removing as line of for that act did not se thrust opened, *per of the road on more the land of than had any Arnsberger consent, with his hitherto, for that occupied purpose, and as I understand the case as it is for our presented judg- matter no whether the ment, has claim plaintiff any against no more not, extensive claim is Rogers made against successors of in the title and than possession would or could been made if had never removed Rogers the fence the west line of the road; and, as the matter before Ius, stands do not see but that as between the present it must be considered if parties, never dis- Rogers turbed the west line of the fence located when the road and to the road thus I opened think opened not case does show defend- represented by ant have ever made any objections. plaintiff case, of the acts of making present complaint Rogers one-half of the road to which their closing up predecessors entitled, title claim to have been and content themselves an observance on the defendant requiring had in so much of the road as was they rights i't if was maintained farm, altogether Commission, per Reynolds, Opinion of the 0. case, feet was required only In that eight

width of one rod. is the and that mentioned, last the farm tobe opened see It is impossible claim. quite extent plaintiff’s and the act of Rogers, the 'defendant has suffered by how Rogers, claim against for the waiving any present plaintiffs same held to the obligation he shall be ask that only leave is to out; the road laid existed at the time land now owned by on the feet of the road undisturbed eight had not as if repu- the same defendant, Rogers precisely his land. the road diated as to the feet of opened upon eight road, feet of with the If the are content eight plaintiffs for the isway only works the defendant injury, certainly farm. the Leddick needed the owner or occupant have contem- of the commissioners The order appeal’s if it the land of a road laid out wholly plated farms of Arns- drawn line between assumed that the lots numbers the line between military and Miller was berger some confusion and there and nineteen, to be It however as to that fact. appears evidence defendant, when it is so claimed fact, and it was on and one-half of worked, actually opened Arns- half on the land of and the other Miller, the land of removed and this location That Miller assented to berger. west, -further apparent, feet quite fence eight The actual now denied. is not consent gave therefore, was, the road out, opening

laying locating which it was land over owners of the consented it was not I see lawfully and do not laid, why present an It was Braman, Hill, open 47.) out. (Baker all the then concerned partici- in which notorious act dissent, and or and none uttered word objection pated, used the owners occupants it was road by private thereafter, with like acqui- the Leddick farm for many years the owner When became escence assent. Rogers half west with the Miller he interfered farm, us it is not for now whether but rightfully wrongfully concerned in no determine. -But this act Rogers per Beynolds, 0. his or successors title or and con- .in possession, ferred them no to disturb so upon much of the right road as the land was over and so far as I have been Arnsberger; able to defence rests discover, other substantial upon am foundation. as I inclined If, to the road in think, was laid out, located and properly opened com- beginning mon consent, act of and that cer- Rogers wrongful, the defendant no license to commit a like tainly gave wrong; if but had excuse for his action, affords defend- Rogers ant no violation protection of the plaintiffs’ rights of the road. any portion

In the view of the I case I do not find it taken, discuss the or under whether not, necessary question any easements in land circumstances, or servitudes think, than I other or but acquired grant prescription; of this and his successors facts case, upon to the in title should estopped any right asserting det- laid out and as a feet of land occupied way, eight But the defence the Leddick farm. riment of the owners of rest theory actually appears one to which unqualified Arnsberger gave opened, if no fault with it be found Rogers co.uld consent, then land located on the had not interfered with under- had but inasmuch consent; Rogers Hiller, whether the act of rightfully taken repudiate Hillpr, imi- the defendant thereby acquired wrongfully, the acts and con- attempting repudiate tate his example by located on as the road so far sent not to defence, think, I prevail, Such ought his premises. a new trial should be granted. I am of opinion All concur. reversed.

Judgment

Case Details

Case Name: Dempsey v. . Kipp

Court Name: New York Court of Appeals

Date Published: Jan 5, 1875

Citation: 61 N.Y. 462

Court Abbreviation: N.Y.