Mechler v. Dehn

Headnote

Real 'property — title — ejectment — where common grantor conveys part of parcel of land by metes and bounds, he can thereafter convey to another only what is left notwithstanding reference in both deeds to a map which showed a greater quantity of land remaining after the first grant than there actually was.

Mechler v. Dehn, 203 App. Div. 128 , affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment, entered November 27, 1922, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term without a jury. The action was in ej ectment and involved title to a strip of land in Middle Village, Queens county. Both plaintiffs and defendants derive title from a common source. Their original grantor divided a plat of land into lots and made and filed a map showing certain lots fronting on Williamsburg and Jamaica Turnpike road. The lot on the corner of Morton avenue extended along Morton avenue one hundred and eleven feet three inches. The balance of the block fronting on Morton avenue was divided into four lots purporting to be twenty-five feet front. Plaintiffs’ predecessor in title purchased the corner lot and the one next adjoining facing the Williamsburg and Jamaica Turnpike road. The boundary line was described as extending southerly one hundred and eleven feet three inches along the westerly line of Morton avenue. Subsequently the lots on Morton avenue were conveyed by metes and bounds as described on the map and defendants have become owners of the lot immediately in rear of plaintiffs’ premises. It appeared that the block fronting on Morton avenue is five feet and seven-eighths of an inch short of the distance shown on the map and the question was whether that amount should be taken from plaintiffs’ or defendants’ land. The Appellate Division held that the original grantor having conveyed to plaintiffs’ predecessor in

title one hundred and eleven feet three inches on Morton avenue could convey to defendants’ predecessor only what was left and that plaintiffs were, therefore, entitled to the strip in dispute.