Contiguous

In close proximity. 69 N. Y. 191, 25 Am. Rep. 168; affirming 7 Hun. (N. Y.) 455. United or joined together. 261 111. 99. Adjacent; in actual contact; touching; near. 143 111. App. 171. In actual contact; touching; meeting or

In close proximity, in actual close contact Arkell v. Ins. Co., GO N. Y. 191, 25 Am. Rep. 1G8; as, contiguous proprietors are those whose lauds actually touch. Vicinal are not necessarily contiguous proprietors; Raxedale v. Seip, 32 La. Ann. 4:;5. In an ordinance relating to excavations and the preservation of contiguous structures, it contemplates nearness of a structure, but with Intervening space; Baxter v. Realty Co., 128 App. Div. 79, 112 N. Y. Supp. 455.

In close proximity; in actual close contact.’ 69 N. Y. 191. Touch ing; bounded or traversed by. The term ig not synonymous with “vicinal.” 32 La Ann. 405.

In actual close contact; touching; near. A relative term; referring to a building, means in close proximity to the same.* A building any particular number of feet, as twentyfive, from a detached dwelling, is not " contiguous " to it.' The charter of a water-works company provided that it should not prevent the city council from granting to persons " contiguous " to the Mississippi river the privilege of laying pipes to the river for their own use. Seld, that no lot can be contiguous unless it fronts on the river or is separated only by a public highway, with no private owner intervening, or, possibly, on a block or square so situated.* Compare Adjacent; Along. > Simons v. Ypsilanti Paper Co., 33 F. E. 193-94 ( Brown, J. = Shoecraf t v. Bloxham, 124 TJ. S. 730 (1888). * L. con-testari^ to call to witness. * Arkell v. Commerce Ins. Co., 69 N. Y. 193 (1877); 10 Hun, 26. ' Olson V. St. Paul, &c. Fire Insurance Co., 35 Minn. ' New Orleans Water- Works Co. v. Ernst, 33 F. R. 6 (1887), Billings, J., following Water-Works Co. v. Rivers, 115U. 8.674(1886), which concerned the St. Charles Hotel, five blocks from the river. Compare New Or-