Case ID: ny_228/html/0535-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George A. Stevens et al., Appellants.
    
      People v. Witherbec, 178 App. Div. 368, affirmed.
    (Argued January 19, 1920;
    decided February 24, 1920.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered May 21, 1917, which affirmed an order of Special Term vacating and setting aside a judgment heretofore entered in this action together with the stipulation and agreement upon which the said judgment was entered and certain deeds executed pursuant to such judgment. On October 7, 1904, this action was commenced by the plaintiff against the defendants for possession of 1,531 acres in lot 5 of the Whiteface Mountain tract in North Elba, Essex county, N. Y. The action was prosecuted in the name of the People by the then forest, fish and game commissioner. On December 20, 1904, the parties, by an agreement signed by the forest, fish and game commissioner and the defendants, settled the action. By the settlement it was agreed that the defendants should take judgment dismissing the complaint and adjudging them to be the owners of 787 acres in the south part of the lot. The defendants were to convey to the People the balance of the lot and the defendants were also to convey to the People other tracts of land in Essex county. An order and judgment carrying out the terms of the agreement were made and filed March 14, 1905. The balance of the lot and other lands in Essex county were conveyed to tío People. The Appellate Division held that the stin;: . v,n and judgment were void as attempting to dispcrc of lands belonging to the forest preserve.
    The following questions were certified: '“First. Were the stipulation and the judgment entered thereon illegal as matter of law? Second. Are any valid interests shown of third parties prejudiced by the vacating of said stipulation and judgment, and, if so, does that make the judgment of this court erroneous? ”
    
      
      Patrick J. Tierney and George N. Ostrander for appellants.
    
      Charles D. Newton, Attorney-General ('William T. Moore of counsel), for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; first question certified answered in the affirmative; second question in the negative; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, Crane and Elkus, JJ. Not sitting: McLaughlin, J.