In Hinkley v. Crouse, 125 N.Y. 730, 26 N.E. 452, the acquiescence had existed for a time less than the prescriptive period.
Summary of this case from Carstensen v. BrownSubmitted January 23, 1891
Decided February 3, 1891
M.M. Waters for appellant.
Stone, Gannon Petit for respondent.
EARL, J., reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.
In Hinkley v. Crouse, 125 N.Y. 730, 26 N.E. 452, the acquiescence had existed for a time less than the prescriptive period.
Summary of this case from Carstensen v. BrownFull title:WALTER H. HINKLEY, as Executor, etc., Respondent, v . JACOB CROUSE…
Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Date published: Feb 3, 1891
It is true that the mere existence of a boundary line must continue twenty years before such existence alone…
Costa v. BengerCertainly the defendants are estopped by their acts from claiming a line farther north. ( Hinkley v. Crouse,…