Case Name: Barbara Stimmel, App'lt, v. Charles Watts, Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-02-10
Citations: 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 380
Docket Number: 
Parties: Barbara Stimmel, App’lt, v. Charles Watts, Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 30
Pages: 380–382

Head Matter:
Barbara Stimmel, App’lt, v. Charles Watts, Resp’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed February 10, 1890.)
Ejectment—Title.
Plaint'fl: held title to land under a deed which conveyed it with all riparian rights, subject to the use of the people of so much as was used for landing purposes. The land under water had been used as a slip, for landing passengers on a dock, and plaintiff never had possession. Defendant holds under a lease or license from the village, which acquired title by deed from a transportation company, and occupies a house threon built on piles, and connected by a bridge with the dock and street. Meld,. that plaintiff had n@ title thereto, or right to possession.
Appeal from judgment dismissing complaint.
Action of ejectment. The locus m quo is land under water on-which defendant occupies a building erected on piles, and connected with a dock and with the street by a bridge.
Plaintiff claims under a deed which conveyed the upland with all riparian and water rights, but subject to the use of and rights of the people to so much as are included in the highway and public landing. At that time the town owned the dock, and the spot-in question was used as a slip to land coal, manure and freight.Neither plaintiff nor her grantors ever had possession.
The court below found:
First. The premises in this dispute consists of a strip of land mostly under water, adjoining the village dock in the village of Whitestone, and runs from the north side of River street in said village, back to the bulkhead line in East river, and is about five feet wide.
Second. River street runs along the shore of East River, next to the water at high water mark, until it comes to an old road called the Olintonville road, which runs down to and upon the dock, nearly at right angles to River street.
Third. That defendant Watts occupies the disputed piece or parcel of land in part by a building resting on piles driven in the water; the front being close to and connected with River street by an approach or bridge, while one end of the building is connected with the village dock by a gang-plank.
That defendant is employed by the village of Whitestone as-dock master, and uses said, building partly as a saloon and partly as a store-house to store freight in, received and shipped by the inhabitants of the village by way of the village dock, and lie is. in possession under a lease or license from the said village of. Whitestone.
Fourth. Defendant traces his claim or title or right to the possession of the premises, back as follows, viz.: 1, by a lease or license from the village of Whitestone; 2, a deed from the executors of Alexander M. 0. Smith to the village of Whitestone, dated June 21,1886, conveying the village dock with the land and appurtenances connected therewith; 3, a deed from the Long Island North Shore Passenger & Freight Transportation Company to Alexander M. 0. Smith, dated February 23, 1881, conveys the-said village dock, together with the lands and appurtenances thereunto belonging; 4, a deed from the town of Flushing to the Long Island North Shore Passenger & Freight Transportation. Company, conveying the same lauds by the same description; 5, a patent or grant from Richard Nicolls, colonial governor of New York, to the inhabitants of the town of Flushing, dated February 19, 1666, and conveys all the lands comprised within, the territorial limits of the town, together with all havens, harbors, creeks, etc.
Fifth. That there is a bay jutting into the land where the village dock is situated, forming a harbor or haven for boats and. vessels, and has been so used for many years.
Sixth. That plaintiff, nor any of her grantors, have ever had possession of the land in dispute, situated on the north side of River street, lying next to the dock, running out to the bulk-head line.
Seventh. That the said lands have for fifty years been used by" the town of Flushing as an appurtenance to the dock, viz.: as a slip for boats to lie in, and for unloading coal, manure and other freight.
Aighth. That the grantees of the town have likewise used the land as an appurtenance to the dock, and for unloading coal, manure and other freight, ever since the conveyance from the town to the Long Island Forth Shore' Passenger & Freight Transportation Company.
And as conclusions of law :
First. That plaintiff has no title to the property occupied by defendant Watts, situated next to the Allage dock, being about sixty-five feet wide, and running back to the bulk-head line from the northerly side of Eiver street.
Second. That plaintiff is not entitled to the possession thereof.
Third. That plaintiff's complaint be dismissed, with the costs of this action.
O. A. S. Van Nostrand, for app’lt; JB. W. Downing, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Dykman, J.
This is an action for the recovery of real property and for other incidental relief. The trial was had before a judge without a jury, and he has found as a conclusion of law from all the facts, that the plaintiff has no title to the property and is not entitled to the possession thereof, and dismissed the complaint, with costs.
The plaintiff has appealed, but we find no merit in this appeal. The conclusion of the trial judge is entirely justified, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Pratt, J., concurs.