New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-11-14
SIPFRIOR cow

| SUPERIOR CorRT-CEsrrL TERs-Nev Is. Before
| Judges DtLS SLossoS and WOODRUFF
IMPORTANT QUESTION or TITLE UNDER wATHR-
GRANTS.
August Belmont ct al sEs. Eiiphalet Mott OF e.
The decision Of this case, which is DOW under arga
mert. will determine one Of the most important ques
tons of title ever raised in the city, The tract Of ianA
in controversy lies under water between Seventeenth
ond Tn. nty ibhd streets on the East River, and la
valued at upward Of million Of dollars. The parties
claim under various grants from the Corporation, o.
which they seek a construction.
Tie whole subject Of the rights Of riparian proprie-
,ors comes up for consideration but the specific ques
ton 10 be settled IT, whether watergrants made
by the Corporation shall follow the line Of the streets,
The law Of the State giving rights of presumption over
lands urder water to the adjacent propnetorS, and the
grants in question being Of LANDS within certain
fuamiug them) streets"
DR.. Not, whose claim is in his own right, conteads
that the line of the grants does not follow that Of tho
streets but one decided by The course Of the shore
the rsir tffs and The other defendants who made
parties for the purpose Of settling the question insisting
on the opposite construction.
| Judge Hoffman favored DR.. Motifs view, and de-
cled The cause mainly in conformity thereto al Specssa
| Tenn, whence the case comes up appeal Judge
Bronton and d. ID. Field for appellau's W. C. Noyes
and j. NJ Barbour for respondents ID. H. Sickles Tor
| the city
TRIAL TERM Before Judge BoswosrH
iMFoRIAsT 70 MohIoast 81, As Ws.d As
The dehLdant Monaghan obtained judgment In
the Marine Court against one Schenck, which vac
cockoted in tic Comm On Peas, and q receiver sp-
POINTED under supplementary proceedings. Prior 70
this judgment Schtnck executed chattel mntga4e
on bis hops bold furniture 10 the present paintid,
which was duly f1d, oil the psrtie.. defsodaat
having aciusl LOtice. The receiver, dnregardng
tie mortgage, ,eized the fur hiiure covered BY
H. il was taken 70 Iryings auction store and solo.
without any notice Of the mortgage. Defendant Cos
ling Of tie restaurant bought portion Of It Toe
proceed Of the isle psid 10 The Judgment cred
tor Of Monaghan. Before suit brought the plaintn,
nsoreseee dco.snded the property snd proceeds
u fTeof of each Of tho defendants.
TIN action If brought to recover OF the receiver eae
n iuJ. mcnt creditor the whole value 81 the properly
takCp CT oBmscts ior improper use and depfeo,A-
'iou ei'cr rtmoSr 81 sod sgaiLs, Gosog u ec2ve, ne
vase e that PORTION Of the properly DOGGY nun:
III Iiar;G $50 claims N" soijh1r sl'ci men.
aud cxceuit, paid in case his cibcr demands are not
,'s;'cd
upor;sicc rpd 0. PECULIAR mt'et 70 s'dIence "s
Ca,,,lev keenan, 5oll Cytrulltg the unsLInous de-
';.ian Il to judges ofthe Superior Coat The Court
= Arota, rcd ia that case tiat sheriff. mskmg
ezu,o rld sale o. mos 'seo P,SSpe'y no' msole 70
ibcn, In any wsy recognizing the lien Of he In IT
cage ard in psfces to various parties, thus destroying
The fecuri.y OF the mortgage.
Tic Govt reserved this question for the Gcneri
Tenn itiiInsiiDg option that the decision Of the
Co. r. Of Appeals covered this case, but that mort
escee might recover caaos rom TIE recover fsr
tic srse Or ant Of care Of The mcrgased property.
While in he po--es-ion.
Ten special questions we're submitted to the Jary;
but that which the Whole "a, hinged reserved
as above stated, re refrain from giviss them q
lerg,b.
The fmount ea..ied Is o, go. With isterest irs.
Oct s. 1854; bu the expenses e e,ch Of Tie Pates ~ -
doubtless tbsn cover the sum IN sus oe!o,o -
ibree days Pieuelont s. Stanley for P.inshsi -
Rurn fof Monaghan and Cavannsh, and d. Evans
Dimmock fer (ioeiiog u
rIir 70 az. Kch.rdson-
Motion dere With slO oosls. &c..
C,,sayx--B fore Judge tLossos
Eals Axt. Lsf hsm-
Motion % striks out amended ns"T - Hcss'~
Ouioon At- ChssD<.
R.sssoe esIsiej. 80