Case Name: Elizabeth Greenleaf et al., Resp'ts, v. The Brooklyn, Flatbush & Coney Island Railroad Company et al., App'lts
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-12-09
Citations: 28 N.Y. St. Rep. 745
Docket Number: 
Parties: Elizabeth Greenleaf et al., Resp’ts, v. The Brooklyn, Flatbush & Coney Island Railroad Company et al., App’lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 28
Pages: 745–749

Head Matter:
Elizabeth Greenleaf et al., Resp’ts, v. The Brooklyn, Flatbush & Coney Island Railroad Company et al., App’lts.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed December 9, 1889.)
Boundaries—Location of lot by ditch.
Plaintiffs’ predecessor in title purchased a salt meadow lot on Coney-Island in pursuance of a survey in a chancery proceeding for partition, it being described only by courses and distances. The map showed a ditch at one side of the lot. The survey on "which this action of ejectment was based began at what was claimed to be the same ditch, but defendant claimed it to be a new one and that ditches in that Ideality were continually changing. Held, that the evidence was sufficiently definite to fix the locality.
(Pbatt, J., dissents.)
Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Action of ejectment. Plaintiffs showed title to lot No. 23 on a map made in a partition suit in chancery by deed from one of the heirs to Charles Greenleaf, made in 1848, which described the lot by courses and distances commencing at a stake in Duck Hill and running to the ocean. The lot was in a salt meadow on Coney Island. The map showed a ditch on the westerly side of the lot. The map used in this action to locate the lot was drawn by one Crooke from statements made by Bergen, who made the survey in the partition action, commencing at a ditch.
The defendants showed that their predecessor had taken quitclaim deeds from all the owners of property in that neighborhood that he could find; that Charles Greenleaf at one time claimed ts locate his lot further west and had made inquiries concerning ito location; that the ditch spoken of was a new one; that the ditches in that locality were continually changing and that the lines of plaintiff’s lot as claimed did not correspond with the public maps and that if run out as claimed it would intersect several other lots.
The court at special term delivered the following opinion:
Bartlett, J. If the principal question in this case were res nova, I should have great hesitation in holding that the proof upon which the plaintiffs rely was sufficient to show that they were entitled to maintain the action.
But the general term of this department has distinctly decided that inasmuch as a judgment of partition in the old court of chancery of this state necessarily imports seizin in the parties to the suit in which it was rendered, a paper title based upon such a judgment is sufficient to enable a party to maintain ejectment, even in the utter absence of any extraneous proof that the premises sought to be recovered were ever in the possession of the parties to the partition suit, or of any person through whom the title is deduced. This was held in the first appeal herein, Greenleaf v. Brooklyn, Flatbush & Coney Island Railway Company, 37 Hun, 435, and the general term adhered to the same doctrine when the case came before it a second time. 3 N. Y. Supplt., 222; 21 N. Y. State Rep., 946. The law of the case must therefore be deemed to be settled so far as the action of a judge at circuit is concerned; and the prior decisions of the general term herein leave the trial court no option but to hold that the plaintiffs have proved enough to entitle them to recover, since the defendants have not established any title in themselves, but have relied upon the weakness of the plaintiffs’ title. Whatever may have been the case heretofore, I think the evidence taken on this last trial is sufficiently definite to fix the locality of the lot which was conveyed to the plaintiffs’ predecessors by the commissioners in partition.
The result of these views is that the plaintiffs must have judgment, with costs.
Win. 0. De Witt, for app’lts; Mornay Williams and Frederic A. Ward, for resp’ts.

Opinion:
Dykman, J.
This case has been before us on two former occasions, when we gave it careful consideration, and reached a conclusion in favor of the plaintiffs.
Upon the former appeals the evidence on the part of plaintiffs only was before us, but upon the trial which resulted in the judgment from which the present appeal is taken, the evidence of the defendant was also introduced, but it discloses no claim of right or title to the premises in question on the part of the defendant.
Neither is there any controversy respecting the title of the plaintiffs to the premises, but only of their location, and the trial judge has said in his opinion: " Whatever may have been the case heretofore, I think the evidence taken on this last trial is sufficiently definite to fix the locality of the lot which was conveyed to the plaintiffs' predecessors by the commissioners in partition."
The findings of the trial judge are also full and explicit in relation to the identity of the lot and the possession of the same by the defendants.
A full and careful examination of the case for the third time confirms our former views, and we have no doubt the results reached on this last trial are in accordance with the dictates of law and justice, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Barnard, P. J., concurs.