The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1866-01-06
CITY wHARvEs AND PIERS.
Important Decision ~ to the RigAts -
Owners.


Owners.
SUPREME COURT-0ENERAL TERN.
Before Judges Barnard, Ingraham and Leonard
JAN 6.-Aoses Taylor vs H. D. and j. W. BrookwaA-
In this plaintiff made an application to restrain u
defendants from erecting either pier or wharf on TIE
East river beyond line running In eastery drectaon
from the intersection Of avenue and Eighteenth
street. parallel with the line OF Stuyvesant street.
motion to this effect made at Special Term, an.
being denied, was brought before the General Term
Judge Ingraham gave the following decision, affirming
the decree of the Special TERM:
Il s not necessary in the disposition OF this motiea
examine any of the questions which discussed on
the appeal to the relative rights Of the parties to the
land lying between Tompkns street and the upland
by the city and accepted by the parties Ali OF the land
under water west Of Tompkns street was owned by the
land between Eighteenth and Nineteenth streets aad
Tompkins street and avenue Il, with the waSsf
rights attached thereto. changed the rights Of
the plaintiff or his grantors as they originally
existed riparian owners and gave the defendants the
right and tile the land under water or reclaimed from
the within those boundaries free from any righA
riparian owner which the plaintiff or his grantom
might have before possessed in that portion of the
premises SO conveyed Such conveyances also gave the
defendants the right of wharfage, &C. appointment -
the land conveyed along the line OF Tompkns sircsA
and probably also along the line OF the oulshesd =
wharfage, &c, which accompanied this grant, could
only be directly in front and adjoining the land 80 ooa.
whar age, &c, south OF point formed ny the inter-
section Of the north line Of Eighteenth street with Tie
exterior line OF romPkns street. Mhatosef tight sd
attached to the land owned by him south Of that line
still, renamed his and was Unaffected by ha. grant The
inquiry IN this need mol extend beyond the question
which TO the right Of he plaintiff o. the ripafaa
Tompkns street, entitled 20 Wharfage &C. then
to extend that right y the and 10 the inferno
date space between the sea.wa and Tomphins street.
does appear in any OF the papers eubnit'ed on u
appeal, whether these piers are to be bsu 2p lines ~
scribcd by the Harbor Commissioners by TIE &c.
mon Council IL the Harbor Commissioners had Ia a
these piers extensions OF the the
do not see how any Of the owners could So
cessfllly resist the execution OF them. The LAGlg-
siure had power 10 direct such erection peruA
the Common Council to provide FOR their erection In the
absence Of any proof 10 the contrary conclude
that they laid out in accordance with the Law. A.
before stated the parties owning to Tompkns street have
no right to the land under water east of that street ~
is their right wharfage affected by the erection e
piers outside 81 that line long Is afforded -
the buIkbead This providedror by TIE opening TO -
made in Marshall ag Guion, Keruan 46l the corposar
would have the power TO direct piers be SUM n
front o. the streets in such they in THAR ~
erection should think proper aud the individual prop
etors who might build bulkhead TO be used AS pablq
street. and to be entitled to the wharfage thereon wcA
not thereby acquire right 10 construct ptofo
projecting from that bulkhesd. DEMO, j., says:-"0
Is not the ownership ofa lot, but mere easement n
injured by the erection Of other ri,rs they mighs -
entitled damages But preyen, the srootioa
Of piers beyond their property aud which do not, as
prevent the collection Of wharfage upon their pof.
UEs
this appeal must be disposed OF other grounds wAea
the plaintiff has no right y the land under water
which il il proposed 70 build this rer he ought uos b.
Injunction 10 prevent the erect on OF what has besa D.
cded BY public authority to be necessary aud proper u
the y bile use His property " not nyatcd He hss1o-
thing but mere easement which may be affected andve
does appear that that will b. nerercd with bY
this pier He show undoubted right what ID
claims before he ask court OF equity 10 aid him ~
maintaining H. There II also another reason why pub.
lie improvement should be stayed by Injunction -
the pfescnt II Is that psnr has an annie
remedy b. action II he Is injured by the erection oS
this or he may compensation for damages
therefor. and Il he can make out any title the land
over Which any part OF the pier Is built he IKE
manner recover the same BY ecctnent The erection u
II would not njurc him. he has authority buiid
any pier over this space. and different plan has
been adopted by the Common Council Il !. probable
that such plan would be changed IL pernh a.
erection OF pier on line parallel via
stuy'essnt street, more especially A. that Nrsse
has been discontinued and closed. There y
upland, SGT out 10 the complaint which can 30 cor
stcred any adjudication upon The questions before
discussed Those related 10 the rights of the Dan
ties in the land, between Toinpkins street and the
shore The decisions there made cannot made appu-
cable Ia this case, In which neither the plaintiff the
city have any title to the fee and where the action
brought merely to protect right ~ wharfage and aos
title 10 the land itself Ny conclusion Is that ne
plaintiff - not entitled Co injunction prayed fof.
but thst he must be left 20 his remedy " no be damaged
by the erection of this pier either By an socn dS.
ages BY eicctmen such other mod. may be ~
vsed The order appealed from should bs affirmed via
ten dollars costs v
John n. Whiting for plaintiff; Gibsr; Dean FOR -
PENDANTS.