New-York tribune., 1874-08-12
THE COURTS. '!9.
THE AUDUBON PARK LANDS.
ELEMENTS OF VALID DEDICATION OF PRoPE

ELEMENTS OF VALID DEDICATION OF PROPERTY
TO THE PUBLIC.
Judge Larremore rendered yesterday the sub
Joined opinion In a of interest to property
owners this island, the circumstances out OF which
the suit being given at length:
In the year 1851. Mrs Lucy Audubon seized and
possessed of certain lands In the City OF Now York,
known "Auiubon Park" lying between the streets
and avenues designated the map plan OF said city
previously made, Northumberland hfty -nftn and
Onehundred ed.and.hftyteventhsts, and Eleventh and
Twelfthaves. On said map strip OF land 90 feet In
width was laid out One hundredand ixtieth-st In
the year last mentioned Mrs Audabon sold the land
fronting on to different
parties making the center o; Observation-Disclosures
sxhst dividing line and she norherly and southery
boundary OF the respective parcels thus conveyed AT
the time such sale there was road or lane running
through the said lands along that portion which Is
dredand aft sixth ST. and IL now used substahlay us
the same originally lad out foI the conyrience OF
the OF property line thereof ln the deeds
given by Mr- Audubon each VI the grantees therein
auied covenant anu that their rant0r her neits
aul assyu- should be entitled 60 sufficient right OF
wa, through and along One huDdred-and ST.
thereby conveyed TO said grantee, Tor al laWln puI
poses TO use the same rs public road Tue parties 10
ms action by sundry mr5ne conyeyances. have become
the owners OF the land in qiestion-U-s piaInLH
OF the noriaef aa thareo o qSl'hIaa No map o. Of said
premises was ever made by Mrs Audubon
authorities to open said street ana on an Official map
recently made sail strip OF Land Is not laid out as
street. aud does not appear thereon: rms faet sum
mary disposes OF the question as to the rsht To nave
and use said strip Of land as street The plllntin
r,
SAID deeds by Mrs Audubon there was a adedicaoh "
said land called -siXth-st as Tor
street, and that the SANE IS suJgce 70 an eaSJeI. s
frontin thereon to the full extent Ol the width tere0i
and that ii should be kept open Tor thit purpose" 10
this end seeks the Judgment OF tie Court ana tat
defendants may remove all fences aud oDstruc-
lions from tao s0nthefy h.m Oh sni a. seees ,o
and refrain thereafter from oDsuuctlbS Iiie sase'
The question of dedication lis one OF intent 10 ne esta
shed BY acts uneIulyoc t ara decisive IA a9rt tne ea
Trustees sandy Hill. Hill if Carpenter dgt G"yhn,
35 Barb. 39j) Ihs ptiLeimPa pa Is Genes"t th ~ M m ~
heI ween owners and purchasers. Did Mrs Audubon
intend that street Of tue wid'a OF oo eel Sao oe
oened az once aud in event Tor the behtn OF her
Immediate grantees whether 1t should be acceped or
not by public authorltisf Dl sall grantees 50 u,
der.tapd when the very Instrument III winch such
dedication il alleged To have been made 10 Contained
reservation her part and covenant on thtirs as 70
night through anu along tue stree. III qioston'
NJ demand appears to have been made on thelr part
their successors In interest lor Tue opening anu
reserved IN said deeds has been Used and accepted by
them sufficient for all purposes OF ingess ana egress
10 and from the lands III question: Tor more than twenty
years evident, then, that C alleScu ueueatOh
qualified aud not absolute thal IL was lntenueu 10
take effect only upon an aect S y! ,n puD , @
tnorieS But j. urged with great fOrce tat the qles
tion in dispute has already peeh aoJuIeated ihI'
bounded on street whether opened or Designed and by
reference to "A map made and hed. such act alone con
sttutes dedleation OF the ahu ihc,uueu IN Tue Dro
posed But In the cases relied upon To sustain
this proposition wiz: Livingston ag the Mayor etc.
Wend SIS: Wymun agt. the Same, IL Wend 4S7: In
Tnrtyfuurth-s, HUI, l9 In re-. ScYenteeuth-st, i
Mend the question Oh dcccptihcc WAS III
pute. These were cases arising upon assessments
made for the opening OF the streets Dy the
public authores and the fact OF acceptance was the
basis of the whole proceeding The General Term OF
the Supreme Court III Badeau agt. Mead "a Barb. 32
after review OF tue earlier decision, holds that
grant nferental or direct whether TO the
public or to private individual. is ineticaeions un;
accepted by the grantee that the doctrine Of dedca
ton has been carried far enough. and ought not u DO
extended" And the Court OF Appeals, III FOuder agt
Borst q Keys ill held that purchaser OF lot deslg
mated and laid out on map, Us bounded by street
was entitled to have SAID street opened until n had
bern accepted by the pIblic. This decision makes no
distinction between the urban ana rural property Inc
land In dispute not having been accepted by the
public authorities, there was no dedication or IL as
street Nor been acceptance or use OF II
AS road TO the extent mentioned in the alleged dedca
ton The plaintiff having the full and undsturbed pos
and enjoy nent of easement or right or way
accepted by the original grantee ani used by him ana
those claiming under hm for over ~ years cannot ss
tam action aud Judgment must DO rendered Tor the
defendants therein. -
Augustus f. Smith for plaintiff Geo. c. Genet for de-
PENDANTS.