New-York tribune., 1902-03-15
MILLIONS NVOL WE'D IN SUIT
JURY ORDERED TO FIND FOR DEFEND
ANTS IN REMARKABLE REAL
T-N
TY CASE.

Justice Scott Of the Supreme Court. ordered the
Jury IN the suit brought 10 decide the ownership
Park West 10 the North River between Ninety
third and Ninety-fourth SITS. TO find a verdict for
the defendants In directing the jury TO return such
a verdict Justice Scott said the evidence did not
show that the plaintiffs had held adverse physical
possession for twenty years, The case Will now
go 10 another court questions Of law
Upon the final outcome Of the case depends the
question as TO whom legally belongs title TO real
estate in this city valued at many millions The
suit in question is that Of Mary s Van Winkle
and Elizabeth NJ. Van Wrinkle against Elizabeth
NJ Van Wrinkle James F Holland James ", Hol-
land and Mary Holland General B. T. Tracy ap-
peared for the plaintiffs. while Peter 4. Henorlck
was counsel for the defendants. The property af-
fected formed the roadhed Of old country road
which ran from the old Harlem Commons. now
part Of Central Park 10 the North River. be-
ginning at q point just north Of Ninety-third-st.
The proof OF the title 10 the property Is carried
back TO a time before the Revolutionary War The
records show that in 1872 Charles Ward Apthrop
bought the property from the Harlem Commons to
the North River. between what is now Nineteen
and Ninety-ninth SITS. The old Bloomingdale Road,
which had been laid under an act OF 1908 ran
through the farm and for the purpose Of access 10
the commons Apthrop opened up lane known as
Apthrop Lane. The lane ran east and west across
the property.
Subsequently, that part Of the property between
Bloorningdale Road and the commons was mort
v0Tl +o secure the payment 1880 Shortly after
The execution OF the mortgage Apthrop died leaV-
ing ten children. The mortgage was foreclosed
after the death Of Apthrop and the property MAS vas
sold by the Sheriff. bought by Hugh Will
iamsor. The deed Williamson figures as an I'M
porfant matter in the present suit
The plaintiffs. who are now in possession Of that that
part of the lane which runs west go feet from
Central Park West. declare that Williamson, pS
the deed from the Sheriff. took absolute title as
owner in fee simple of all the property covered by
the mortgage, including the roadbed ot the lane
and that the children Of Apthrop and thelr De
scendants were forever cut off by II from any claim
or title The defendants. on the other hand, claim
that Williamson. in taking the deed from the Sher1n
in 1929. acted agent for the ApthrGp children
and although he took the title in his own name ne
simply held II as trustee Tor the chldren' IN "hom
rested the legal and equitable title.
II is conten6ed that ApthroD Lane vas never
conveyed away By the Apthrop children or their
rscent years that therefore the legal title to il
remains in the descendants Of Charles Ward Ap-
throp. The defendants in the present sult are
descendants OF Apthrop. The other sled declares
that the Sheriff's deed bars them from any right
hut further contends that subsequent conyeyances
OF the property on either side OF the lane made by
the Apthrop children conveyed 10 the centra! line
OF the lane, and thus bar the DESCENDANTS OF Ap-
throp Of any right the old road
The plaintiffs also claim the portion of the oid
road which they occupy by adverse possession. They
property and that in 1879 he fenced in the part Of
the lane in suit. and that they have since main
tanned possession. The defendants called number
OF witnesses to show that the lane vas open 10
the public until 1855. when Ninety-four1h-st was
paved. and that no fences were erected then.
The suit illustrates the rapid growth OF the city
IN that district The first house between Ninety
third and Ninety-fourth not built until 1886
Until about that time the property used
pasture land and the land was in the possession OF
Elizabeth NJ Van Wnkle. who was OF the
defendants. is not the person OF that
who figured IN the suit as one OF the plaintiffs.