New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-06-09
sI-pRFME COURT-spEcIAL TERM.

Before Judqe IngrdhGm.- francis I0Se agt.
Moses TAYLOR GL-Tne plaintiff in this action MI NOre,
slammed that the Florida Railroad Co owed HIM for iron
sed in the construction their road for which he took
sai u Fgow as the internal fmovement Fund had
sontro Of certain lands beou ng the Railroad and the
laws require annual payment to the trustees OF Ae
COMPANY Of onehaf Of per cent ON the amount OF
tie indebtedness of the road to form sinking fund.- ana
directs such sinking fund 10 be invested by the trustees
pany They also empowered to sell the road under
serajn circumstances, which they eventually dld ana
he proceeds of the sale put into the hands OF Mr.
Moses Taylor of this city, for the purpose OF buying mp
Che bonds here FOR less than their full value. Aerward
Mr. Taylor was directed to pay back 10 the trustees
what was left of the money. Mr. Vose tlch
paving the money TO the trustees and sought to have It
applied to paying the coupons on his bonds Inc case
S Sss asS e f delivered si an opinion IN Which he
holds that is clearly the duty of the trustees TO use the
Of the corporation the purchase of the bonds and II
such purchase could not he made then To invest The
principal Of the bonds When they become due 1t is,
thuk YeIY el5ar lie says that this fund was not ill
tsnSci III the payment Of the interest acerung before
apparent could be sinking fund for the payment
OF the principal because one-haf of one per cent would
not leave much surplus after paying six per cent interest
IL seems to that upon both grOunds-fst that the
he STATE of Florida and that the funds held by them
oy the statute Of Florida specially made applicable TO
Soilng TO Justify any judgment Of the Court directing
the application Of these funds 10 the payment Of the
coupons. II the plaintiff we're willing to receive the pro
rata amount awarded 10 the bondhOlders generally In
the his bonds and the defendants refused 10 pur
chase those terms diff rent case would be presented
Judgment FOR the defendant.
The Netr York and brooklyn Ferry Company agt Fran
els o. J. Smith ct at-The plantns are the owners OF
land ON the east side OF the East River and occupy
wharyes and piers erected IN front OF the and io the
purposes of the ferry On the southery side they have
pier block erected and filled in, and extending about
III feet beyond the bulkhead line of 1851 This erection
covered and included an old per erected III S on the
same line and which Sc feet in length. Adjoining
these premises Of the plaintiff the upland Is owned by
Lofts Wood and the defendants hold from MN lease
Of il for years Under this lease they commenced
the erection Of pier, adjoining that OF the plaintiffs ~
feet in width by 20 IN length, when the plahs apped
for an Injunction against the building OF II, ana
asks to have It made perpetual. Judge lngraham
has Just delivered au opinion ia winch no houS .i1
such thing adverse possession OF land
under water that is not occupied. The property whch
and did constitute any adverse holding nor ana te
receipt Of wharfage from vessels lyng on the slue Oh e
whaH ADJOINING the property Oi ING ~
any such adverse possession. so long as Tue waters vi
the rver flowed over it, II was part OF the Ver 70
NDch the pubhc had rlght OF access Ineie - o
continued Enclosure and occupation as the statute re
qures ~ give title by adverse possession wnch II no.
claimed under deed IL Is also eiaileu vi e p
the plaintiff that the defendant Smith, being mere res
see OF Ile upland has no Ight 70 eIec5 Pers an fbe
ownefs Of the upland 10 erect keep and MAINTAIN Ger
their assigns manner sufficiently ample 10 allow the
erection OF wharyes and piers and any injury is done
the remedy T. in an action for damages.
The remaining ground which this action is sought TO
b. maintained the provision in the act OF 1857, 10 estab
tsh 6ukhead and pier lines for the port OF New-York
Tberc is nothing in the act defining the mode III which
solid material built piles the same would he within
The privileges conferred b the statutes There can be
night I'LL up with solid material up "a the new bulk
head line. The only difficulty arises from the provision
Of the statute which requires intervening WAFER spaces
Of AZ least 100 feet TO be preserved This has no reference
W the lands inside of the bukheads, and can give no
other construction IL outside of the buKhead ehcept
thai means that spaces for between the piers to
shall be 100 feet in width The object OF that u
for the accommodation Of shipping, and although ~ may
operate narshly small water grants sti the remedy
with the legislature and not with the Courts me
Defendants claim right build adjoining the plain
us pier that pier is not 20 feet In width ana az
6e statute allows Of piers being erected 20 ieet %1e
building within 100 feet difficulty OF such constrnc-
lion q be law arises in It's application 70 TINS cas- dn
although Il dimnishes in width % feet at the water
10 81 for 20 feet It would now e3cesa Ine S Idnuty
Icouces great injustice to the owners OF such lana ana
requires some modification but the remedy Is not MIL
remedy at Law, equity VII not lntetiere " !,
WI work serious innfy 10 another a Court OF Equity
require such night u be established at Jaw
Scart ril nterpOse with this remedy ench, tn,.h
should BE- the rule adopted In the present case Aei
ths plaintiffs have established their right at law they
nv1y renew their application for perpetual
Rlalntfs, Robinson ScTtDnei iOf the uelenuiVS
sqsseiT Knapp etaI agt VIM T. BlOd0ea.rhe plain
un "a tk action claimed To have title by adverse pos
~ " certain lands uptown which nave Desh soiu
sToPerty in 1858 was in the possession OF sao c
neneln On bis death the executors sold DIS iedl -
a ana the four lOt ia question were conveyed by tnt
Sgnelt Of Lease under sale for taxes THIS ieast
uateu IN 1872 and was for 70 years. me case wa
ueo ~ the last Special Term, and judge Ingrahan
A. opinion which he has just delivered, holds that
oes not appear that Jacob Schieeln made any Other
an OF Ute while be held the tax lease, and his poss y
st ie y Of Tue possession Of the purchaser nom In
e1ecu.os VINO took title under this abridged tax least
o' De considered adverse during the continuance
~ tne lease The Of the fee could not have ex
ected any night OF pOssessOn while the tax lease
& pr ana the transfer Of it and possession under
~ 'e except during us continuance the adVers'
sessioh under Samuel p. Schieffeln does not com
srtnoII unul DEC. -, l@5 The evidence shows
,.s- POsseshlOn and Enclosure OF the pfemlse
lof 70 that time and continuing after the termination
s",id1 Upon the trial it was suggested that Their
sDaV " no adverse possession while the tax lease wa
sheAwred but this would only be applicable 70 the oTgi