Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Finch, Pruyn and Company, Incorporated, et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1924-05-23
Citations: 238 N.Y. 584
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Finch, Pruyn and Company, Incorporated, et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 238
Pages: 584–585

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Finch, Pruyn and Company, Incorporated, et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others.
Real property — title — constitutional law — motion to vacate and set aside stipulation and deed entered into in settlement of action properly ■ denied.
People v. Finch, Pruyn & Co., Inc., 207 App. Div. 76, affirmed.
(Argued May 13, 1924;
decided May 23, 1924.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered November 22, 1923, which reversed an order of Special Term granting a motion to vacate and set aside a stipulation and deed made and entered into in the above-entitled action. The following questions were certified:
“ 1. Did the Forest, Fish and Game Commissioner have legal power and authority to order this action to be brought?
“ 2. Did the Forest, Fish and Game Commissioner have legal power and authority to compromise this action by accepting from the defendants the deed which reserved to the defendants, grantors therein, the right to cut timber on the lands thereby conveyed?
“ 3. Did the plaintiffs on the 4th day of January, 1909, the date of the deed given by the defendants in settlement and compromise of this action, have a title to the lands thereby conveyed which, under article 7, section 7, of the Constitution of the State of New York, rendered void the reservation of timber rights contained in the deed of January 4, 1909, and recognition of defendants’ title by the plaintiffs in said deed? ”
William T. Moore and George N. Ostrander for appellants.
Carl Sherman, Attorney-General (Roy Lockwood of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ. Not voting: McLaughlin, J.