Case Name: Jacob D. Remsen, Appellant, v. The New York, Brooklyn and Manhattan Beach Railway Company and The Long Island Railroad Company, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-03-09
Citations: 111 A.D. 413
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jacob D. Remsen, Appellant, v. The New York, Brooklyn and Manhattan Beach Railway Company and The Long Island Railroad Company, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 413–416

Head Matter:
Jacob D. Remsen, Appellant, v. The New York, Brooklyn and Manhattan Beach Railway Company and The Long Island Railroad Company, Respondents.
Second Department,
March 9, 1906.
Ejectment—when such action triable before jury although incidental equitable relief is demanded.
A complaipt which demands the recovery of possession of lands with an incidental request .that the defendant railway in possession thereof be compelled to remove its tracks, and be enjoined from using the same, states a’mere action for ejectment and should be tried before a jury. The fact that incidental equitable relief is asked does not deprive the defendant of its right to a jury trial as such relief would be given in the common-law action.
Hooker, J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Jacob D. Remsen, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the . 21st day of [November, 1905, sending this action from the equity calendar to the jury calendar for trial.
The complaint alleges that the defendant is in possession. of the = land in question and that its railroad runs over it. In addition to being given possession of the land, the complaint prays for relief that the defendant remove its tracks and cease to run trains over the land. (Por more complete exposition, of the complaint, see dissenting opinion of Hooker, J., post.)
Hector M. Hitchings, for the appellant.
L. J. Carruthers [Joseph F. Keany with him on the brief], for the respondents.

Opinion:
Gaynor, J.:
This verbose complaint alleges,nothing bat a cause of action for-the recovery of the possession of real property.- That the defendant is a steam .railroad company, and has tracks on it and runs trains of cars, over it, does not make the suit one in -equity. If the- plaintiff recovers possession, and the defendant leaves its. ties and rails, after it, that presents no casé calling for the assistance of a. court of equity. The plaintiff's own hands will suffice. And it is to be presumed that when the plaintiff gets into possession b.y a common-law judgment the defendant will not run a train of cars over him or his property before he can pull up the ties and rails. If the defendant should be guilty of continuous trespass1 upon his, property .after he is given possession, which cannot b"e presumed, equity will give protection then. • . "
And if there were some incidental equitable relief needed to supplement a common-law judgment for the plaintiff, that could not deprive the defendant, of its right to trial by jury. The action would still be ejectment, and such incidental relief could be given by the: Court at the same time (Davis v. Morris, 36 N. Y. 569). The case of Hahl v. Sugo (169 N. Y. 109) is not to the contrary; it is nothing but an illustration of the old rule against the splitting of causes of action (Bendernagle v. Cocks, 19 Wend. 207). It does not. decide anything about the right tó a jury trial. It only holds that the plaintiff there had only one cause of action, i. e., a common-law cause of action of ejectment in which some incidental equitable relief might be appropriate under our practice system, and not that he had two causes of action, i. e., one at law and; the other in equity. If it had held the latter, it could not have held that the - plaintiff should have united the two causes in one action,' Bo one is obliged to do that. Thé rule "is only against splitting one cause of action. 1
The order should be affirmed.
. Woodward and J-enks, JJ., concurred; Hirsghberg, B. J., concurred in result; Hooker, J., read for reversal;