ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

(Ν. Υ.) 910 (Pa.) 855

..

Parker v. State
....(Fla.) 850
Patterson v. Chapman ...(Cal.) 1467
Pecos Valley Lumber Co. v.

..

...

....

.....

Stuckart

..(ΠΙ.) 1650 (Ν. Υ.) 1220

v.

Nelson Bros. ...(Ν. Μ.) 128 Peden, Chichester v. .........(Va.) 1414 Pendleton, Dixon v. ........ (S. C.) 915 Pennsylvania Co. v. Philadelphia .....(Pa.) 1573 People ex rel. MacMahon v. Davis v. Galbo ex rel. White & Co. ......(Ill.) 1052 People's Amusement Co., State .. (Kan.) 880 Teople's Ice Co., Laskowski v. (Mich.) 586 People's Water Co., Holloway (Kan.) 161 (R. I.) 768 (Pa.) 1573 (Pa.) 759

v.

v.

.......

Pett, Ferris v.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Co.

v.

..

Philadelphia & R. R. Co., Benner v.

Pierson v. Union Bank & T. Co.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

(S. D.) 542 (Mass.) 1667

Texas Bank & T. Co. v.

(Tex.) 771

Spanell v. State (Tex. Crim. App.) 593 Spokane, Taylor v.........(Wash.) 1046 Spring Valley, McDonald v. (III.) 1359 ware Co. ........(Tex.) 1486

Sobolewsky, Bradley v. .... (Conn.) 1887 Thomson v. Findlater Hard-
South Covington & C. Street
R. Co., Covington v.

[blocks in formation]

Thurston County, Washington Union Coal Co. v. (Wash.) 1546 Travelers' Ins. Co., Upton v. (Cal.) 1597 Triangle Land Co. v. Detroit (Mich.) 1526

Turner v. North Carolina Pub.

Service Co. .....(N. C.) 1398 Sanderson v. ........(Okla.) 347

[blocks in formation]

(Idaho)

251

▼. People's Amusement

Co.

...(Kan.)

880

[blocks in formation]

V.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

merce .. ..........(Okla.) 211

State Public Utilities Commis

W.

[blocks in formation]

AMERICAN
LAW REPORTS

ΑΝΝΟΤΑΤED

RE APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK RELATIVE TO ACQUIRING TITLE TO THE PARKWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF THE BRONX.

JAMES A. WOOLF et al., Appts.
MADELINE PIERCE, Respt.

New York Court of Appeals - October 28, 1918.
(209 Ν. Υ. 344, 103 Ν. Ε. 508.)

Boundaries - property abutting on highway.

1. Where a conveyance is of property abutting on a public highway, or where the descriptive lines run to or along such highway, the presumption is of an intent on the part of the grantor to convey title to the center of the highway; which presumption, however, must yield to language showing a contrary intent.

[See note on this question beginning on page 6.]

Same effect of description.

2. The presumption of an intent on the part of a grantor of land abutting on a highway to convey title up to the center of the highway is rebutted by a description of the premises conveyed which bounds them beginning at the

northwesterly corner of W. street and S. avenue, thence running westerly along said street 50 feet, thence north parallel with the avenue 100 feet, thence easterly parallel with the street 50 feet, thence southerly along the avenue 100 feet to the place of beginning.

APPEAL by petitioners from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department, affirming an order of a Special Term for New York County, Part I., directing distribution of an award to respondent in proceedings to acquire title to land required for street improvements. Reversed.

The facts are stated in the opinion Mr. James R. Deering, with Mr. James A. Deering, for appellants James A. Woolf et al.:

The deed from Thomas O. Woolf, 2 A.L.R.-1.

of the court.

Joseph A. Woolf, and John A. Woolf to Claus Young, dated July 19, 1855, did not include any part of the land within the boundaries of Walnut street

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »