TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Galatian v. Gardner

Galatian against Gardner

Galatian v. Gardner, 7 Johns. 106 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1810)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
November 15, 1810
Citations
7 Johns. 106
Headnotes
A road used as a public highway for twenty cedíngnthe slat becomes ¡Tpubtbou1ghhnot\-ccorded; and it does not cease to be a public highway,though originally lead- and andiiigTor ferry’ has been though1’ some part of the way has been appropriated and built passage conti”ame°dock°and Ianding.
Summary
THIS was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit. . r d The locus in quo was a piece or land in the village of Netvburgh, adjoining the bank of the Hudson river, bounded on the north by a store and dock, west by Water-street, south by First-street, and east by the river. plea was the general issue, and the defendant gave x ° notice, that he would give in evidence at the trial, that , the locus tn quo was a common highway, and that the plaintiff obstructed it, and the defendant peaceably removed the obstruction*See.; that from time immemorial, t^e defendant, and others under whom he claims to hold, have used the way, &c. from the public highway, called v r ... y Water-street, through the close of the plaintiff, mentioned in his declaration, to the close of the defendant, &c. The cause was tried at the Orange circuit, in Septem1809, when a verdict was found for the plaihtiff. The cause turned upon a question of fact, whether the locus m quo was a public highway. It is not necessary , , ... r . , , to detail the evidence given m the case, as the substance of the testimony is stated in the opinion of the court; and it would not be well understood without an inspection of the map produced at the trial.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The simple point of fact in this case is, whether the locus in quo was not a “ road used as a *108 public highway for twenty years or more next preceding" the 21st of March, 1797.” If this fact be in favour of die defendant, it amounts to a justification of the tres» pass; for the statute (Laws of N. Y. vol. 1. p. 595.) declares, that every such road shall be taken and deemed a public highway,- although no record thereof has been made. The evidence in this case greatly preponderates in favour of the usage. The defendant produced seven witnesses, all of whom had known the road for above twenty years next preceding March, 1797, and all declare, that it had been used during all that time as a public highway, leading to the dock and landing of the defendant.

The witnesses on the part of the plaintiff do not essentially contradict the defendant’s witnesses. They principally go to prove that the road in question, at the intersection of Water-street, had been removed some feet more to the south than it was formerly, but they admit that it had not varied where it passed over the premises of the plaintiff; and they all concur in the declaration that there is no way of getting to the dock and landing in question but by means of this road; for that First-street has never been used, and ever has been, and still is, impassable. There is likewise one important fact established by the witnesses, and not contradicted by any, and that is, that from the year 1743 there had been a ferry kept at the defendant’s landing, under a charter granted to Alexander Golden; and that before the war, during the war, and for some time after the war, there was no other ferry kept across the Hudson, at New-burgh, but the one at the defendant’s dock.

The verdict ought, therefore, to be set aside, and a new trial granted, upon payment of costs.

New trial granted.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1837–1838: 11849–1850: 11851–1852: 11859–1860: 11869–1870: 11873–1874: 11883–1884: 11889–1890: 11891–1892: 118372026peak 1837 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Irwin v. Dixion50 U.S. (9 How.) 10 (1850)
  2. Speir v. Town of New Utrecht24 N.E. 692 (N.Y. 1890)
  3. Harding & Loftin v. Jasper14 Cal. 642 (1860)
  4. Lobach's Case6 Watts 167 (1837)
  5. Hanson v. Taylor23 Wis. 547 (1869)
  6. Wilkinson v. Tilden14 F. 778 (1883)

Most recent

  1. James v. Sammis30 N.E. 502 (N.Y. 1892)
  2. Speir v. Town of New Utrecht24 N.E. 692 (N.Y. 1890)
  3. Wilkinson v. Tilden14 F. 778 (1883)
  4. Douglas County Road Co. v. Abraham5 Or. 318 (1874)
  5. Hanson v. Taylor23 Wis. 547 (1869)
  6. Harding & Loftin v. Jasper14 Cal. 642 (1860)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list