The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-08-03
PRAMn CoURr-SPECIAL TERM.
Before Hon. Judge Davies.

fhe Poole Of the STATE of Neo York and
Byennon and James Taylor the Mayor, Aldermen ant
Coanonahy gf the City Of Ne0 York and others-Aotion
by plaintiffs for receiver and injunction Hu.chlngs,
sosghton and Van Buren, fer plaintiffs Busleed kcKeon,
Noye and O'Conor for defendants.
DAVIES, JufiCe-The facts charged In the complaint
are that the people " the State are fee OF
tain premises the city Of New York lying on the west
erly aide Of street between vessy and Dog Streets
a. westerly about 44o test That The defend
ans the corporation Of New YORK; have taken possession
thereof and have rented the for market and other
purposes That the people have nsde ard executed 10
the plaintiffs Taylor aud Brennan, Jesse for said
misses for year from April "a, 1885, ut an aonuai
rent Of 81 0o0 pay able quarterly That the seentant
withhold from Taylor and Brennan the pOdcsa
Of the premises, and that they are eotted
10 the repls and profits Of the same from
April "a 1898 That the tenants Of the premises pay tho
n thereof defendants refuse b Wedge
,be Of the plaintiffs TO them toe rent IN ereof
That small portion only OF the rents Collected have been
laid into city treasury, aid that the persops act
pg collection Of the rents peculiarly espon
lie and are not authorized 70 act That The amount
PAD annually than the Of $4,000 aod that
The money are paid weekly. That II would be tue duty
Of the collector Of the city revenue to collect and
ceive euch rents the really belonged N the city,
but tbss the collected BY other person
That the Comptroller OF the city has received but small
portion a'y Of Inc rents coiecsai 'nsa ne , mas
therefore, that the city has no right to collect and en-
force pay ment Of the and thst for this reason
he has RETAINED from exercising ttat control over
the property which he would have done II Il belong.
10 tine city. That the occupants Of the premnes are
rent weekly in and that the same is in danger
being wholly lott by Of tn cir want OF meanB aad
the residence Of many of them DOT Of the state That
the has stalled that IN his opinion receiver
Gus ht 10 DO appointed take charge OF and collect said
rents bold them for the benefit o whomtoevcr may
be entitled thereto On the bearing, other tdavs were
made en- the part of the plaintiffs sho~ ing that the pre-
misses controversy We're outside the four hundred Feet
from low water mark on the North river Inat me
MAYOR Of city has concuIred in the opinion OF the
Con- psy oer that the title the and is In the State aod
not in city, and that the city has right to have or
use the On the part of the defendants, the Oorpo
ration there ia produced the adsss Of Mr. Serrel City
Surveyor settog forth that the premises in question
have been reclaimed BY the defendants, the Corpo
ration, from North river, by filling in the same.
That tucn tlliUg In began 10 1874, and was com
peiec in 1885, that since such filing In the Defendants
the Corporation, by their officers ana agents. have
rented the SAID premises, have claimed 70 own the
same, ezercised acts Of domoion over the same,
ana s v s,aos tnst sucb fling vas
done under c'ain of title 10 the land undtr water,
that since such hing the defendants the Corpora
top have in actual possession thereof claiming 10
own the In fee simple He jurther states that the
rents OF tGid premises being collected by Root A.
gsggey duly appointed for that purpose By the defend
an,s and that The being faish uly collected by
him paid Into the city reas my That ne has always
supposed thai the duty Of said Corporation 70 collect
such reuts whether the title TO the said premises
actually vested In the deIenant the Corporation the
State that be Is not OF the opinion that the appointment OF
u 10
Of the State or tie city; that sad rents
in due course OF collection, and by proper persons
The Mayor makes an affidavit expressing the same
yiews. The afi5avit Of Bepson emo vs. taat clerk
Of the Market previous 70 the commencement OF this
suit he collected the rents from the PREMISES and paid
the N the Corporation. he Affidavit OF Baggery
shows that since the commencement Of this suit has
been Appointed as officer Of the foance depatmen
Of the dsienasn 70 Soec, ssa IenH sno nss
ihe title Of the city TO the premises question
conceded that they lie outside Of the 400 feet granted
Manic
gan charter 20 the CITY land between and
low water mark ali around the .siknd, and the Aoatgome
RE charter 73o granted 10 the Corporation On Tie North
slip OF LAND extending into lbe river, 400 feet IRON
low In l79e the Leg slaure passed act
authorizing the Corporation ley ont exterior streets on
both rivers Of the Width Of 10 feet ana such streets were
10 be ba expense OF the Of the ajjonIng
lots, fronting on the same, and the Intervening
spaces were 10 be filed up BY them, and sucn
proprietors hlrg up such intermediate spaces Of
ground TO become owners Of the same In fee
sand C. Rep icS Inc superior Court held tina. the prS
pors referred 70 the grantees OF the or
their assigns who bad received rans 10 the full exteut or
med spaces those which 10 consequence Of tho
rregusrty the shores sometimes interviewed between
meet. u from, Of me river wbsS The oct saSorzss 70 be
butt and that these intervening spaces ooopged 10 the
STATE and granted by tho STATE 70 the adjoining pro
prietors the conditions expressed In the acts The
taken Court Of Apress and the otgment
Affirmed upon the grounds taken IN the Superior Court
The Oorporsson the owner Of lands fronting on the
river built streets ard hed up the intermediate
spso g. therefore the In fee simple OF
the anes EXTENDING 70 the .essery sae o. wet street
Of the State commenced they representing the Crown
or former sovereign, own the bed Of ali navisAole
such owners have the right 70 grant and sell the same
without reference " the owner o. the adjacent upland,
grantee Of the Crown and state can 40 build upon
or improve the spd granted 10 cut OF the owner or
the lands from all 70 the water These points we're
dsncty ruled in the Of Gould The Hudson River
Railroad Company. e Sedeu, Say By section ave OF
tire act Of lTes Was lawful for the Cooperation 70
direct piers 10 be sunk and completed such
they might think proper front Of rad streets wharvcs,
al the expense Of propretors Of the lots lying oppo
site the places At which said piers should be sunk Ia
the pfopretofs refused 10 sink and build the PIERS
the Corporation might do and receive the wharfage -
III N own use From the facts before IL appears that
the Cooperation have built bulknead upon the land OF
the State four hundred feet Of West street. and
flied no the space and erected their build
irgs, which used for market purposes. do lot
ind any title Get up 10 hete premises BY the Corpora
ton, trough II seems by the AFFIDAVIT Of Mr. Serren,
that, ct The Nne Of the hllpg, Was done under
claim OF title. Upon what ground We have NO iu'or-
msuon, and am greatly M loss W perceive any. go
little doubt has been entertained this subject that the
present ptroler ho has large experience Ia city
anars and who V rot ssck " assert ana maintain 'oe
rights and interests Of the Corporation ssys 10 bis report
10 the Common Council under cate OF February ., lsb4
"ln the OF the past year tro land has been
gained from the North river By constructing oulknead
from pier No 70 70 riu No O. between vescy ans Dey
street, and covering acre, equal 10 ninety full lots
map OF tbs land including "..hlnsson Ms,ss. ns
~ outside OF west hIch at that point the exte
ror line Of the AGO feet granted TO the Corporation by the
charter OF 1880, usually called the Ncngomere grant
The bed CT the bcyord the line OF tnst street. aud u
the eco feet embraced In the charter belongs 70 toe
people OF the State Of New York, and before the
lara Is sold (Which he bad recomm ended In hls re
pori), OF any erect0us made on Il, II IN advisabe
TO have the title settled by &C, Of the Legislature
II would appear from the affidavit Of Mr.. Mott that
the present Mayor OF the city eutertains siui M
opinons 10 the title OF the state The title " the
prem ses 10 question would then 10 be free OF ell
doubt IN the people Of this STATE has been 80 decided
by TIE highest court Of the State, recognized oy the
chief officers Of the Corporation, ana particularly toe
ComptI oler whose especial duty In TO lo1k after the
property OF The Corporation II Is averred In tbecom-
psnts and have looked In In the pagers put In 10
oppose this motion for any denial Of the title OF the state
or any averm that the title In the Corporation As
the appointment receiver this court by section 2tt
subdivision Of the oooe, Is authorized 70 appoin
cever before iudgu the application Of ner party
where be establishes apparent right W property wb,h
10 the subject OF The schsu and which In The possession
Of tho adverse party and The property or m rents and
profits Danger being lost materially niures
mnsired Edxafda his able xnfk recelxefa. lEil-