The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-09-25
United States Clrcnit Court.
GREAT PROPERTY sUIT-0vER TEN MILLIONS OF DOL
AuoO NJ NOM svarv


Before Hon. Judges Nelson and Belts
SIR 2S-AtsaA Br1sn, W;so.c, U.s. "a Henry T. ssaooa-
mchc-7he same ., rs. James Lenor, Eh Whae, 1somas
suits commenced in the 1854 and are in rela
ton to the title to property bounded BY Fourth avenue
tween Eleventh and Thirteenth streets containing about
one hundred and fifty houses and LOTS also hundred
and forty houses and lots between the Sixth and Eighth
avenues and Thirty-frst and Thirtyhrd Streets and
about hundred houses and lots In other parts
Of the city e a So an dispute N Value aa The 70 ss
was tiled before, and the decision reserved until
argument was had before the court: There is
great array lawyers each side Ex-chief Justice
Bronson exJudge Beardsley, Mr.. VIM. c. Noyes, Hon.
Levi ChatGeld and Mr.. Daniel Woodhouse appear for
the plaintiff; and Messrs. N. Bidwell and Jas. Hug
gin Tor the deiendants The questions to be deter
mined by tho Court upon the VIII Of Jacob Arden,
which took effect IN 1901 BY which he gave IN
Jacob s. Arden John Summers to take the iee II ia
cob s. Arden had children at his DEATH by way Of ex
would get the by the terms of the win,
as he had to survive all the children Of Jacob
$. Arden at his DEATH and Jacob s. himself,
therefore, the plaintiff contends that when John sum
gave his deed with warranty in 1905, to Jacob s.
Arden and his heirs he had present interest to con-
vey and Jacob s. Arden could in any event obtain
Summers future interest the grantees of Jacob Arden
who the defendants and that their right to the pro.
perry ceased on the death Of Jacob s. Arden.
The following The points relied upon by the plain
TirstThe estate remainder given Jacob s. Arden by
the win Of his father Jacob Arden was qualified deter
Is and no sra III ee But fec N
terms; and the fact that might determine his death did
change It's character 2. IL not fee tail which
statute would into fee simple Looking a. the whole
ss body as should be living at de time Of lis death and on
failure aa no Fee he w
as was converted by fec tail That
at Ss
Ss ice 30 that
sbe for The first taksr TO perform the condition. and thus
second-Ihe Limitation 70 John Summers was good By
oseob Arden sae The Limitation mot am
indefinite s but definite failure Of O nS failure r Of t.
mote only tied up the estate and rendered it inalenabie
ThrdeUnii happening of the contingency upon which
was to s b. the . death Of acSs Il Artsn
was naienabe and nothing passed by hsdeed to Arden In
Tourh-on death Of Jacob Arden without issue,
e % his e p hold @
claim The land against The grantees; and the estate which he
h lie crsaes By ~ 's'l = '.'
ep M brs a s y waS N effect %a
yeyanee DE Jacob 5 arden ,hey The
De made Win them it,. sogsars on the lace
BY Jacob Arden. The estate which SUMMERS
would depended upon contingency which could
srly Impossible ta Thing should ever vest in him. ether
BE- a a. a fact
far concerned must be regarded as grant 70 non
entity or 70 wholly incapable OF taking by grant, and so
ea q ss1 e + a s s Ss deed de w de
made 1905; say paernal sistera
OF his faher)Mrs. Wit, Mrs. Summers and Mrs. Leycra
answered the description and We're the grantees and
nantees in the deed.
sevcnihMrs Abijah wilt one Of he grantees the deed,
died in 1870 leaving children whom her
third OF the estate descended her heirs at law; q r. L. 81
80 and the plaintiff who one Of those children and heirs Ia
OF entitled to recover undivided share OF the
perry. AS there adverse possession and Mrs. Wit
look by purchase, se had such seisn In law constituted
her the stock Of decent and the estate and covenants passed
TO her heir, OF whom the piantif Is
Eehli-The plaintiff Is entitled 10 recover undivided
twenty first part OF the premises In question.
Mrs. Wit had children but OF them, James and
Benjamin. having each been absent unheard Of for than
years. must be presumed dead and neither OF them s
before this action brought Each the remaining
children OF Mrs Wilt tof the plaintiff one) Of
entitled TO seventh part OF her third, twenty first
part or share Of the property.
Nint-i look those who answered The description Of
heirs Of Jacob Arden at the time OF his death In 1929 the
plaintiff is still cL 70 % As he left neither issue.
aher brother the persons answering the descrp
ton OF heirs must be iuad s collateral relations
Tenb- the deed oil Summers must be regarded grant
10 Jacob s. Arden, the plaintiff Is still entitled to
% On the death Of Jacob s. Arden In 1874 the estate de-
acended to his heirs CO. As he Left neither ISSUE father bro
Their sister the heirs be found his collateral
aons He seized but his father, Jacob Arden
died seized and the stock descent Tracing the
from him through his three sisters, hrs Wit Summers add
leycra who all dead prior 10 s seventh part OF
Mrs. Wits third went 10 her daughter, the plaintiff cee
Eighth and r. L. 52 So 2) As the estate inaenab
nothing passed by the mortgage 10 Roosevelt the decd OF
Jlcob :. Arden 10 the trustees