New-York tribune., 1922-07-14
Court of Appeals UphOlds
N. Y. Central's Claim
TO Title in Seven-Mile
Strip Along the Hudson
Custer Effort Fails
I'm Three Tribunals
Litigation Begun in 1913
Over Land Acquired by
Railroad 20 Years Ago

The Court Of Appeals. in a unani-
nous decision announced yesterday,
decided in favor OF the New York Cen
tral and against the City Of New York
In the suit Of the city 10 recover .itle
TO the seven-mis right Of way Of the
railroad on the west side Of Manhat-
tan from Seventy-seeond Street 20
spuyten Duyvil. The suit involved pro-
longed litigation. in which the railroad
scored victories In three courts.
The action was brought against the
railroad in 1918 by Corporation Coun-
sci Burr and was one Of several insti-
tuted In recent years having for their
purpose the reelaiming for the city Of
the right Of way. Though the opinion
was handed down Wednesday its text
has not been made public.
Railroad Claims Possession
The city based It's action on the
ground that the railroad was making
use Of land belonging 10 the city 10
which Il never had obtained title. II
was eontendsd by the railroad, how
ever, that Il lawfully possessed the
strip and also land under water. 60 feet
in width, occupied by its tracks
over the seven-mile distance. The city
began ejeetment proceedings after the
Public Service Commission had taken
up the case, the commission holding
that the railroad could not prove title
10 the land over which IL operated its
trains north Of Seventy-second Street
and below the Harlem Ship Canal.
The complaint was dismissed By Su-
Irene Court Justice Donnelly. The city
then carried the case 90 the Appellate
Division, which affirmed the Donnelly
decision. The case then was laid before
the Court Of Appeals. the last step that
could be taken Justice Smith, who
wrote che opinion Of the Appellate
Division, said:
"The rights Of the railroad com
pany do not exist under any general
law which requires a franchise from
the municipality. The franchise was
given by the state itself. subject only
| 10 the approval Of the municipal au-
/ thorities. which approval has been
given. This franchise, while giving the
right 20 construct the road. would
not give the right 20 take private prop
orty without compensation. and ] will
assume for argument that tho land
owned by the city, which was not used
for public purposes, was the private
property OF the city for which COM
pensation might have been required
Took Title Seventy Years Ago
= nj. IL. ~~n.gJovt IL rkarCa
Of the law department Of the New York
Central Railroad, in commenting upon
the decision last night said; The
company first defended and claimed
good title by purchase from the true
owners and under deeds given by them
about seventy years ago; second, on
the ground that N there were any de-
feets In the titles Of its grantors sew
enty years ago. then, In any such case,
the company having been in actual oc-
eupation and possession OF the entire
lands, claiming title under those deeds,
It's title had thereby become perfect;
and. third, that in any event the city,
By it's own acts. was stopped from sue
cessfully prosecuting this action. While
the company relied on all these points
as being good, It's main reliance was
upon the fact that IL had purchased
these lands and paid the true owners
for them The trial court decided the
case in favor Of the company resting
It's decision or the third point The
Appellate Division affirmed the judg-
ment and the opinion was based on the
fact that the company had made out a
good case on the second point The
Court OF Appeals has now finally az
frmed tho judgment,
THE two questions raised by the city
in regard 20 the railroad Of the com
pany on the west side Of Manhattan
have now been settled in favor Of the
company The suit between the city
and the company, tried several years
ago. in which the claim Of the city that
the right Of the company 10 have and
maintain these tracks was limited 20 a
period Of fifty years and that such
rights had expired was involved, was
decided adversely 10 the city and the
court permanently enjoined the officers
Of the city from interfering with the
tracks. The decision just rendered dis
poses OF the claim Of the city that the
land belonged 20 the city and holds
that IL has not title and determines
that the company's title is good"