Case Name: KUHLMAN et al. v. CITY OF BROOKLYN
Court: Brooklyn City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-01-22
Citations: 27 N.Y.S. 126
Docket Number: 
Parties: KUHLMAN et al. v. CITY OF BROOKLYN.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 27
Pages: 126–126

Head Matter:
(6 Misc. Rep. 429.)
KUHLMAN et al. v. CITY OF BROOKLYN.
(City Court of Brooklyn, General Term.
January 22, 1894.)
Eminent Domain—Compensation—Rights of Mobtgagee.
A mortgage of city lots, which excludes from the premises described therein so much as had been taken for the widening of a street, and restricts the conveyance to the parts of the lots not taken, does not convey the award for the portions taken. Engelhardt v.' City of Brooklyn, 21 N. Y. Supp. 777, 3 Misc. Rep. 30, distinguished.
Appeal from trial term.
Action by Wilkin Kublman and others against the city of Brooklyn. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before VAN WYCK and OSBORNE, JJ.
Chas. C. Smith, for appellants.
Almet F. Jenks, for respondent.

Opinion:
VAN WYCK, J.
This is an action to recover awards made for land (the front strips of two lots) taken for the widening of North Second street in this city, under an act passed April 19,1871, (Laws 1871, c. 559.) This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiffs' alleged claim to the awards rests upon a mortgage made after the passage of the act, which mortgage expressly excludes from premises described therein the land taken for the widening of this street, and restricts the conveyance to the parts of the lots not taken. No intention to assign these awards can be-inferred from this mortgage. In Engelhardt v. City of Brooklyn, 3 Misc. Rep. 30, 21 N. Y. Supp. 777, cited by plaintiffs, and Delap v. City of Brooklyn, 3 Misc. Rep. 22, 22 N. Y. Supp. 179, we held that there was an assignment, for the reason that the mortgages in those cases were the exact reverse of this one, in that they conveyed the whole of the lot by metes and bounds, as if no part thereof had been taken for the widening of the street. Judgment must be affirmed, with costs.