Case ID: johns_11/html/0191-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jackson, ex dem. Snyder and Snyder, against Lawrence.
    NEW-YORK,
    May, 1814.
    Wheré a pai ¿s^tion deed con « tained an exception of aft places which may he found convenient for erecting mills on a certain creek, &c. It was held to mean only natural mill seats3 or falls in the creek, and not places where mills might be erected and supplied with water bymeans of sluices, or* other works of art.
    THIS was an action of ejectment brought to recover the undivided half of the mill seats and mills, situate in lot No. 117. in the Scoharie patent. The cause Avas tried at the Scoharie circuit, in September, 1813, before Mr. Justice Yates; and a verdict Avas taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court on a case.
    The plaintiff gave in evidence a deed of partition, dated 18th March, 1808, between Peter Vroman and Jacob Snyder, Avhich recited certain lots in the Scoharie patent, held by them in common, and, among others, lot No. 117. which, Avith others, Vroman released to Snyder. The partition deed contained the following clause: “ Always excepted out of this indenture of partition, all places which may be found convenient for erecting mill or mills on Foxe’s kill, and on any of the lots and pieces of land hereby diAÚded, which shall remain in common among the said Jacob Snyder and Peter Vroman, and their heirs and assigns forever.” And it Avas agreed that each party Avas to have a free road across the other’s land, Avhere it might be wanted, &c. .
    It Avas proved that the defendant Avas in possession of 50 acres, part of lot No. 117. and that lie admitted to the witness ¿hat fog claimed title froin Peter Vroman by sundry mesne conveyances; that he had erected on the said lot a saw mill, an oil a fulling mill, and a carding machine, about six years ago j that the lessors of the plaintiff were the sons and heirs at law of Jacob Snyder. The witness testified that he never considered the premises in question as containing a mill seat, until after the defendant purchased, in 1804; that the water supplying the mills erected by the defendant was taken from Foxe’s creek, and conducted by a sluice to the distance of forty rods, to the fulling mill and oil mill; that the saw mill was near the dam .at the creek side, and the water was conveyed to it from the sluice.
    Another witness testified that the defendant, and the persons through whom he derived title, had been in the quiet possession of the premises since 1789; the witness never considered the premises as containing a mill seat; and that there was no natural mill seat on the premises; that the water which carried the mills had been obtained at great expense, by means of a sluice, from the creek, &c. and that when the mills were erecting, several persons, and Snyder among the rest, said it was a foolish under-' taking on the part of the defendant.
    
      The case was submitted to the court without argument.
   Per Curiam.

According to the true construction of this exception, it applies to a natural, as contradistinguished from an artificial, mill seat. From the uncontradicted testimony of Josias Clark, it appears that there was no natural mill seat on the premises in question. . The water of Foxe's creek had been diverted by the defendant, at a great expense, so as to create, as it were, a place where mills can be erected and put in motion on lot No. 117. This is not that kind of mill seat which comes within the obvious and reasonable meaning of the exception in the deed. There are other grounds upon which .the defendant would be entitled to judgment, but the one mentioned appeals lo be so entirely free from doubt, that it is unnecessary for the court to go any further.

Judgment for the defendant. .