Rafferty v. Anderson

Citations

• 106 A.D. 383
• 94 N.Y.S. 927

Syllabus

<p>Boundary of a lane — controlled by a former deed describing it-^~ meaning of the word “ intersect.”</p> <p>In an action in wliiclr the issue involved was whether the southerly line of a lane leading from a road was, as claimed by the plaintiff, a straight line at the point where it joined the westerly line of the road, or whether, as claimed by the defendant, it was a curved line at that point, it appeared that a deed conveying the premises abutting on the southerly line of the lane and on the westerly side of the road described such premises as beginning at a point in the center of the road “ where the said highway intersects the southerly boundary of the lane.” It also appeared, that a deed described the lane as a “ strip of land twenty-six feet wide, to be used for a right of .way only, commencing at the public highway.”</p> <p>Held, that the two deeds established the correctness of the plaintiff's contention, for the reason that if, as stated in the first-mentioned deed, the boundary line of the lane intersected the center of the highway the line could not join with a curve because if it did there would be no intersection, and for the further reason that if the lane widened out with-a curve where it entered the highway it would be more that twenty-six feet in width at that point instead of twenty-six feet as stated in the second deed;</p> <p>That the statement in the second deed controlled the width of the lane, not only at its commencement at the highway, but throughout its entire length, which was uniform.</p>