The New York herald., 1851-09-07
Supreme Courf- special Term.

THE STATEN ISLAND FERRY CONTROVERSY.
DECISIONS BY CnILF Jvs1oE EoMoNDs.
Crnelias TanderbM NeW York and Staten Island
Ferry C0my0ry, and e,hers -EDssoNDs J.-rhe originS
suit brought by this plsnta respect TO the su6sst
matter Of this suit against four persons in their in
dividuai capacity. In that suit injunction was
granted restraining the defendants therein the agents
servants and workneD, and all persons acting under
them by their permission from ring with or IN
any using the premises in dispute In this suit
II is moved TO extend that injunction to the ferry
company and others aud also extend its commands
TO restrain the defendants from using their own
property induce Others 20 violate the In
junction of the Court The application does not so much
involve title II oes possession and Is unded on the
idea that reparsbe injury viii be done TO the freehold
by the acts OF the def ndants sought TO be
and the idea that those a>t are allowed to CON
tnue nnunersbls suits viii be necessary TO enable the
plant to proUct his title and possession SO far ~
title is TO be considered n is manifest o IN the pa pers
read this motion, that OF all the parties 10 th suit
the plaintiff alone has title pretence Of title The
grants TO Western. under which aud the Terry
Tspy and thoee acting for them claa any interest IN
the exclude them, aud he and they by the
vrry language of their couvyauces that
they have title prctense of title. They set up,
how,v,r in their justh four pretences:-firs
that thy have right II way by necessity. Second,
that the o title OF al the parties had no
title hmse aud could therefore, convey none to the
plaintiff Thid that Western at the time OF granting
his lcase TO TIE i.ry company was in possession and
bad been for pany y"rrs; AID Fourth, that psiptiu
mot and n'y'I has 0s' a ia possession shau examine
all the CO ns. huf l. nccesssry to do only in
ftfertnce e. lie company aud those who are acting
unoer them - tor H. Mr Western II concerned, can
whstcver Tor his intermeddiing IL he b
right e. h,s title la his claim TO OF necessity,
be has lsssed al to the ferry company and has no In
in possession II be is in those claims,
then be has right TO intrude upon the real ownor
In the he tTrspassrg upon his tenants, ana
In the other upon the rghtul owner There IL no pro
that he l. acting the agent OF the company
has be any riEht interfere To his covenant q
quiet enj0y 0ymcnt; fra trespass by another upon
premises which he has granted leased is no breach
that ,nsnt There H. therefore. excuse what
ever for hs ntormcddliug and him the molten fos
rjunction must b. granted A. TO ths way Of ne
cessity, there two cOnsid fations which ate con
fpr MIR Nesfnl and
and at all for the nuudrcds of passengers whom
be or they might please To land IN the viciaity,
Rnd-Sc . wby Of necessity Is ai
lowed where the has any other
10 his land, In this case, Westerns l,ni hes d.
r,cty on public highsay the river ant he has foeT
to II IN thai As 20 the claim that the
tent 10 Van Duzen does not include the dosa
tioD. several considerations are controlling .-firt II
does rot lie in Ia, mouth ~ Western claim us
under him to this question. nj it by
means clear that the patent does not includs tas
premises Third poeEossun has ben then aud neii ~
many years under the pasont and Fourth, tnis M
the proIer mode Of testing cr trying that guesti. 10
cannot lie auhcritatfyey settled In hi Collateral insn
The remainirG ana most import in question b that
OF the possession. The claim % Western aud hs isss
rests upon three grounds lrst. that Lis tenant y
portion his premises took san or the premises Ia d,-
prta. and permitted others 20 do but t y not prr
tended that in thafe acts he Wa tis sgeut Of werra
acted IN his behalf vita ms knowledgs -
oneent Ills aoa therefore, ca IN 40 re-prct enur =
the benefit of Western or thos cAiIrs under aim :
coud That he raid taAes the property So Tar n car
und rsanl the afdsvs IN tnis respect h. wa s.ssse
for the prop rty which be ungusstionably owned tas
cludcd the pr, uisss IN question. but 1t Nowhere pr
tended that there any description cf t1e property
Assessed which necessarily Included tv-s p-cnsits
Third That he hsd actual possession ~ thai part - IN
disputed prenes which veTsd b r1riiou ut N
f,rryhouse Duilt by Oliver Nandcfbli bui % r unwht-
alleged that th.s possession of ina part an name =
the whoic, that it uIaerstod rgcsved ts
Ucdy, as ~ posscscn of more land shaw ec huas
actually covered On the other hand the eYlc1c n Nsa
dertlte pcsei9 consists wa the tact tlat To- s-e =
tha Turnpike Company ara its assignment 10 Wander
h nd Lie fact ist i1r several ysafs before and at
tins the G,.endsnts entered upon the premises tbey
thrge bs Nnndefiits express authority, holding IN
drf him. sna Lin alone aud that the p'''-
oere driven amid ihr very fish poles which marcel
and luf several gears lad most distacty mrk-d
tbe possession tnd"I lgse circumstanccs II = ~ an
test mat ctar1 ANA those claiming under him nav.
| neither fllg nrI right Of possession on
the rruists vhCr, i!g aggression c9mpiain.d w ~
ruretrHtsd but that possession was actusiy IN
bilt 81 thos. H. ldfg under them. and with color o.
title In TITS thngs, the def.ndans sFeh i"rc'oy
| to enter upOn spprt pirate 90 their own use ~ III
were their ovn he promises in dispute and that by
pe ms rent erestions which may vey Prvot0y 40 ire
parutle injury 10 the true owner hut be thst 90 OF
not at all evens 10 subjects the owner 10 innumerebie
suits t defer his title aud possession am OF opinion
Therefore that the drst injunction properly granted
and ought extended In this suit TO all the parties
| so ~ TO render It eicctusl
| Cgy,Ius Jand,,bth rs Geo. Lap aud others Motion
granted and attachment 10 issue Defendants TO be held
| 10 bail in $500
Cornelius Tahd7bM rs. Geo. Iau and others In this
a motion for attachment granted against fo-
shay Who In The employ q the defendants and drove
the piles tine ferry, in violation Of the injunction 10
sbay &c be he'd to bsn In the sum Of $500