66 N.Y.S. 289 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1900
The action is in ejectment for a strip of land 2 inches wide and 100 feet in depth, lying on the northwesterly side of Putnam
After the defendant obtained his conveyance he commenced to erect upon the premises a brick building, using as the southwesterly boundary a line. 130 féet 2 inches from the corner. Immediately upon the commencement of the work a dispute arose between the parties as to ownership of the strip, the plaintiffs claiming to own the 2-inch strip north of their northerly wall over some .part of which some of their clapboards and other parts of their northerly wall extended. The defendant claimed that although his deed conveyed a lot 130 feet along Putnam avenue, he took under it 130 feet and 2 inches. If this' were a controversy between the
It is true that the mere existence of a boundary line must continue twenty years before such existence alone will make out a practical location in law and that a mere acquiescence by the owner of land in the possession of another for less than twenty years under claim of title .does not deprive the owner of his land or estop him from asserting his title. (Hinkley v. Crouse, 125 N. Y. 730, and cases cited.) ■ But that does not affect the case at bar. The possession of the plaintiffs was of the house and lot as erected and there is nothing in such possession which covers the two-inch strip in question, of which there was no visible occupation.
It is, perhaps, wise to add as matter of explanation.that the difficulty arises from the fact stated on the trial by the plaintiffs’ counsel and not disputed by the.defendant’s counsel, that there was some difference between the standard of measurement used at the time of the partition deed to Suydam and that in use at the time of the plaintiffs’ and defendant’s deeds, the variation being about 1 inch in 100 feet, in excess of the present standard. It was also stated that buildings have been erected on the entire block, from Bush-wick avenue to Broadway. All of these houses have permanent locations and each owner has the number of lineal feet required in his deed. A judgment for the plaintiffs might give rise to litigation as to the titles of these various lots, and we should hesitate to come to any conclusion having that effect unless justice requires us to do so. We can discover no such necessity. Certainly the plaim tiffs have their twenty feet and suffer no injustice.
The judgment must be affirmed.
All concurred.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.