The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1845-12-29

Trinity Church COrporation--Thc Long
pending suit-Miiiions of Property In
yolved.

Trinity Church Corporation--Thc Long
pending suit-Miiiions of Property In
volved.
The litigatons which have been so long pending
IN relation 10 the immense property held by the YES
try OF Tnalty Church, are, from present appear
ances, likely TO be disposed of ere long, IN some
way other final hearing 10 the case is now
in progress before the Assistant Vice Chancellor.
As the subject Is OF deep interest to the citi-
Gems Of New York and more especially 10 those
who reside within The limits OF the property in dis
puIe I; We have been induced 10 give the public
some idea OF the position OF the parties concerned,
and the nature Of their respective claims.
There have been several actions instituted By differ
ent branches OF the family OF Annette Jams, whose
descendants are very numerous, (probaby numb ring
upwards OF one hundred persons,) the principal por
ton oil whom are residing IN different parts OF this
State.
One branch of the heirs commenced an action of
ejectment against The Corporation OF Trinity Church
Tor portion OF the property IN dispute, with view
OF testing right 10 the whole, IN 1853. This suit
was tried before jury IN 1850, when verdict was
taken, subject to the opinion OF the court In 1862
decision and Judgment was gwen IN favor oil
TriIaty Church
Previous TO that time, the heirs of Annette Jams
had made repeated claims to parts oil the property
but the English Interests predomlnated the heirs
being Dutch, and claiming under Dutch patents. II
appears We're deeated in seeking their alleged rights
up 10 1855
Il also appears from publications made about that
Iiilt, tll6t Il nuHOer OF the n6lrS OF Annefe Jams
took possession OF part of the properly in 1885, and
on which occasion several violent personal conflicts
ensued betweenhem and persons legged to have been
nstlgated by The Church party Ii is, however, stated
IN rather an antiqna,ed publication, that prior TO
these difficulties some OF the ancestors OF tine pre-
sent claimants, for two or three years enjoyed
quiet possession of the properly IN dispute.
In the year lIo6, another portion OF the heirs OF
Annette JAMS, commenced an action OF electment
against the corporation of Trinity Church but, as
It Is supposed, that consequence of want OF means
on their part, the suit abandoned
In 1904, still another suit was commenced, and
that SUIT continued pending IN the Supreme Court, IN
this city, until 1926.
The present suit was commenced in 1880, the bill
being filed in the month OF December Of that year,
and III March, 1881, demurrer was filed TO the
whole b, except certain part, and 10 that part an
answer was put IN.
On hearing Of this demurrer before the Chancel-
lor he oyefruled and required defendants 10 plead
or answer. At the expiration of three months the
ume allowed, they filed their present plea
The compainants questioning the sufficiency OF
the plea, IN the usual course OF Chancery proceed
Ings. the Chancellor, on hearing OF counsel, ruled
that the plea was sufficient Wnereupon the appeal
was taken to the Court for the Correction of Errors
where the question OF sufciency Of this plea was
farther argued, and the Court tor the Correction OF
Errors affirmed the decision o. the Chancellor,
which ordered the compliments 10 reply. or file
replIcation winch done, the being
thus at issue upon this plea, and the to sup
port II.
as well as that of the compainants; the defendants
belag bound by the terms of the plea prove their
plea true and the hearing before the Assistant Vice
Chancellor IS 10 decide on the sufclency of
their evidence TO prove II true.
The whole OF Saturday occupied by the coun-
sci for the church, III producing leases to their
merous tenants covering the extensive property they
now hold In accordance with the terms of the de-
iendants plea, they required TO prove that they
nave had the actual possession OF all the property
lying west OF Chapel street, between Christopher
street end line between Warren and Chambers
streets, from the year l705 the time Of fling the
plea.
On the part of the compliments or heirs of Annette
Jans, II Is necessary to show that some OF their
ancestors occupied portono OF the disputed territory
under claim OF the whole within the before named
period, peaceably as the church corporation has
occupied the other portion.
The evidence TO be adduced in this case will pro-
badly be exhausted during the of the day,
when the subject will be argued by the able counsel
on both Sides and whatever interesting facts may
then be elected in relation to this long pending and
important sun, VIII be duly noted and given in the
columns OF the Herald
The case viii, doubtless, be more readily uRder
stood by the following abstract OF the bill filed In
Chancery:-
by the compliments BILL he claims of the de-
scendan OF Annette Jams Bogardus. formerly wife
1.-THE Dominic Everardus Bogardus undivided fifth
part OF onesixh Of sxtytwo Of land, in the city
Of New York once known by the OF the Dominies
Bowey confirmed to the children and heirs of Annette
JAMS, by Governor Nchol, in 1867. The bill alleged
ed to Cornelius Bogardus the ancestor of the complain
ant at the time of his death in 1907 and ht I'd him
rs tenant in common with the corporation of Trinity
church That upon his death, that sixth descended to
ms eldest son, the grandfather Of the complainant,
who died in 1869 ntesate That his death descend
ed to the father Of the complainant died ntesate in
1884 leaving the complainant and his four brothers and
sisters heirs at law by which the complainant became
entitled one fifth OF that undivided sixth as tenant in
with his brothers and sisters and the corpora
ton The bill further stated that in 1905, the corpora
ZION went into possession of the premises. claiming the
n Nall al. lnnA of nnrt
from part of the children and heirs of Annette Jams to
Col Francis Lovelace executed in March, 1871, which
only conveyed to him an undivided portion of the pre-
misses, and under the OF grant from
the crown of Great Britain, made in 1905 whereby the
corporation became tenant in common with and rus
tee for Cornelius Bogardus the elder and subsequently
Tor his heifsat-law and their heirs. And that the
of the premises, in trust for him and them from
the time OF such entry in thousand seven hundred
and five. down to the filing Of the bill 10 this
The complainant in his bill, further alleged that in
1888 the corporation, by committee duly authorized
for that purpose made its claim in writing to the pre-
mises under the deed of transport to Colonel Lovece
and through tho conveyance of the grant from
the crown The complainant further stated that the
poraon had sold certain parts of the premises and
ceved large such sales and had leased other
portions thereof reservng the rent which rent IL had
received as tenant in common with Cornelius Bogardus
and his heirs and the complainant prayed discovery OF
all the property OF the corporation and Of the rents and
income of the premises in question in this cause and OF
the sales thereo and for account and payment OF the
oneh OF onesXth of the rents and profits OF the pre-
misses and OF the proceeds OF such sales which had been
received since he entry OF the corporation in 1905
which might be due thereafter.
The defendants to ell the relief prayed for in the
bill and all the discovery asked for by the complain
ant except much related to the supposed entry Of
the corporation upon the premises called the Dcminie's
Bowcry under by virtue OF the deed Of transport to
Col Lovelaoe and so much as related TO the corpora
ton being seized possessed holding the pre- misses
any part thereof under the deed of transport,
tenants In common with the complainant or his ances
tors under the deed of transport the deed of conrma
ton from Governor Nichols; and so much elaed TO
the alleged receipt Of the rents and profits avss or pro
DIS of the premises in trust for to the OF the
complainant his ancestors; and much related to
estate interest share OF tho premises in common
with tho corporation to the taking OF csplus profits
thereof by the father Of tho panant and much
related TO the written claim communication stated in
the bill to have been made by the committee OF the
corporation In 1885, and the certified copy Of tho deed
transport enclosed therein and to the authority OF their
committee and much related 10 the intent OF that
written communication pleaded in bar, that on the 23d
November 1909 Queen Anne being in the possession