From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

WINSHIP v. BUFFALO, ROCH. AND PITTS. RWY CO

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 1898
25 App. Div. 631 (N.Y. App. Div. 1898)

Summary

In Winship v. Pitts (3 Paige Ch. 259) Chancellor WALWORTH, although holding that an injunction was properly refused to restrict the erection of a building upon premises where the lease did not specifically limit the use thereof, nevertheless (at p. 262) said: "I have no hesitation in saying, that by the law of this State, as now understood, it is not waste for the tenant to erect a new edifice upon the demised premises; provided it can be done without destroying or materially injuring the buildings or other improvements already existing thereon.

Summary of this case from Brokaw v. Fairchild

Opinion

February Term, 1898.


Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Adams, J., dissenting on the ground that there is no proof of the absence of contributory negligence.


Summaries of

WINSHIP v. BUFFALO, ROCH. AND PITTS. RWY CO

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 1898
25 App. Div. 631 (N.Y. App. Div. 1898)

In Winship v. Pitts (3 Paige Ch. 259) Chancellor WALWORTH, although holding that an injunction was properly refused to restrict the erection of a building upon premises where the lease did not specifically limit the use thereof, nevertheless (at p. 262) said: "I have no hesitation in saying, that by the law of this State, as now understood, it is not waste for the tenant to erect a new edifice upon the demised premises; provided it can be done without destroying or materially injuring the buildings or other improvements already existing thereon.

Summary of this case from Brokaw v. Fairchild
Case details for

WINSHIP v. BUFFALO, ROCH. AND PITTS. RWY CO

Case Details

Full title:Martha Winship, as Administratrix, etc., of Lovell Winship, Deceased…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Feb 1, 1898

Citations

25 App. Div. 631 (N.Y. App. Div. 1898)

Citing Cases

Sigsbee Holding Corp. v. Canavan

At common law if he materially and permanently changes the nature and character of the building, as where he…

Brokaw v. Fairchild

To tear down and demolish the present building, which cost at least $300,000 to erect and would cost at least…