County of Erie v. Bourne
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Shattuck v. Laing (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Shattuck v. Laing (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Schweitzer v. Heppner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Earl v. Smithler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- Hibiscus Harbor, Inc. v. Ebersold (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Petitioner-appellant, County of Erie, appeals from an order which denied its motion to amend its petition for condemnation of an easement over respondent’s property for sewer purposes. The application was made by notice of motion served on October 27, 1975 following a preliminary order of condemnation granted on June 14, 1974 and the exchange of appraisals which were completed October 14, 1975. The original petition by the County of Erie sought to condemn an easement across the land of James and Alice Bourne on Sweetland Road, Derby, New York. Parcel A-543, the public use for which the easement is sought is described in the petition for condemnation: "for sewer purposes, as authorized in Article 5-A of the County Law, and Section 74 of the General Municipal Law, namely for the construction, reconstruction, operation and maintenance of sewers, pumping stations, sewage treatment and disposal works and necessary appurtenances within the aforesaid sewer district; and that the lands and interests therein hereinbefore described and sought to be acquired are to be used for sewer purposes by the County of Erie.” The map attached to the petition described a 30-foot permanent easement and a 30-foot temporary easement over the Bourne property bisecting it for its full width of 375 feet. The motion of Erie County seeks to amend the petition to describe the length of the easement as 422.8 feet instead of 375 feet and to amend the declaration of the public purpose to which the easement will be put to read "for the purposes of construction, reconstruction, operation and maintenance of sewers and necessary appurtenances within the aforesaid sewer district.” The petition does not contain a metes and bounds description of the easement but only of the entire parcel owned by the Bournes over which the easement crosses. The description of the easement appears on the survey map attached to the petition wherein the length of the easement is shown as 375 feet. It is an established rule of construction that, where in a legal description of a parcel of real property there is a discrepancy between a monumented course and distance, the course will prevail over recited distance where the latter is in error. "The rule is well settled that a conveyance is to be construed in reference to its visible locative calls, as marked or appearing upon the land, in preference to quantity, course, or distance; and any particular may be rejected, if inconsistent with the other parts of the description, and sufficient remains to locate the land intended to be conveyed.” (Robinson v Kime, 70 NY 147, 154.) "[B]y the general rule of construction, monuments control courses and distances, and estimates of quantity are usually subordinated to both.” (Case v Dexter, 106 NY 548, 554.) "[Wjere [sic] there is a discrepancy between monumentation and linear measurements, the former governs.” (Wates v Crandall, 144 NYS2d 211, 214-215, affd 2 AD2d 715.) The monumented course appears on the survey map to be from the property line of Martin A. Gouyd commencing at a point
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.